NATURE AFTERMINERALS:how mineral site restorationcan benefit people and wildlife

for birdsfor peoplefor ever

NATURE AFTERMINERALS:how mineral site restorationcan benefit people and wildlife

A M Davies

November 2006

The evidence supporting this advocacy document is outlined in the technicalreport: A M Davies (2006) Nature After Minerals – How mineral site restorationcan benefit people and wildlife: the report. The RSPB

Both the technical report and advocacy document can be downloaded fromwww.afterminerals.com. For more information about this document, or toreceive further copies, please contact Alice Davies at the RSPB.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Paul Morling for his help with the section'Restoration for wildlife benefits people', and John Day for his help withresearching case studies. She would also like to thank the followingindividuals for supplying case study information: Jo Stavert-Dobson (RSPB),Paul Morling (RSPB), Jeff Kew (RSPB), Sophie Leadsom (RSPB), CraigBlackwell (Oxfordshire County Council), Alison Hopewell (Oxfordshire CountyCouncil), Martin Layer (Smiths and Sons (Bletchington) Ltd), Simon Elson(Surrey County Council), Julian Hughes (RSPB), Ray Matthews (Friends ofPaxton Pits), Malcolm Barnett (North Yorkshire County Council), SimonWarwick (Lower Ure Conservation Trust). Also the following individuals fortheir help in preparing the text: Nigel Symes, Darren Moorcroft, Brian Cleary,James Dawkins, Ralph Underhill, Simon Marsh, Robin Wynde, Fiona Hunter,Dave Hoccom (all RSPB) and Tony Cook (BAA). Thanks also to VictoriaAlexander and Charles Luckhurst for their help with digitising land-use.Finally, to thank all Mineral Planning Authorities for their help with collectingdata, all those who responded to the survey and all our stakeholders whohave shown support for the project.

Lydd Quarry, Brett Aggregates Ltd,where a mosaic of wetlandhabitats such as reedbed isbeing created.David Kjaer (rspb-images.com)

Contents

An

dy

Hay

(rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)

Foreword 2

Executive summary 3

Introduction 4The minerals industry in England 4Opportunities for habitat creation 4

Restoration for wildlife benefits people 6Case study: Old Moor 7

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan 8Planning policy context 8A vision for the future 9Case Study: Paxton Pits 9

What contribution can mineral sites make to the UK BAP? 10

What is the current contribution? 12What end-uses are taking preference? 12

Why isn't this potential being met? 14

How do we achieve this vision? 16Case study: Needingworth 16Securing long term management 17Case Study: Financing long-term management of sites in Oxfordshire 17Bird-strike: A risk based approach 18Case Study: Reducing bird-strike risk in Surrey 18Ensuring planning policy support 18Case study: The Swale and Ure Washlands Project 19

Conclusions 20

Recommendations 20

Background 21Methodology 21

References 21

page

1

Nightingale singing atPaxton Pits nature reserve,Cambridgeshire,Aggregate Industries.Ian Johnston

Foreword

Extraction at Farnham Quarry,Hanson.Alice Davies (RSPB)

2

The RSPB has a long history of creating semi-natural habitats, often on post-industrial land. Some of our most beautiful nature reserves are formermineral extraction sites. Places like Dungeness and Fairburn Ings benefit notonly wildlife, but also local communities, providing attractive greenspacewhere they can meet friends and family, take a gentle stroll, and besurrounded by nature. Using local greenspace in this way, means peopleimprove both their physical and mental wellbeing. New nature reserves alsoprovide jobs and attract visitors, thereby supporting and generating economicactivity within local communities.

Creating priority wildlife habitats allows us to redress historical habitat loss. Itis exciting to be able to put something back – to help turn the tide of habitatdestruction. By increasing the area of priority habitats we can help ensurethe plants and animals that depend on them can expand in range andpopulation. In an increasingly uncertain world, where wildlife is underpressure from challenges such as climate change and changing land-uses,creating habitat can make species more resilient, increasing the chances offuture generations enjoying a country rich in biodiversity. Targets for habitatcreation are included in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, the UKGovernment’s commitment to biodiversity.

Mineral sites offer a fantastic opportunity to contribute to these habitatcreation targets. Some wonderful examples already exist, as shown by thecase studies throughout this report. However, the scale of the opportunityunearthed by this study certainly surprised me – the potential for habitatcreation is far in excess of what was previously understood. With thepossibility that habitat creation on mineral sites could exceed governmenttargets for many priority habitats, it is clear that such sites could provide alifeline for our wildlife.

This report sets out a vision of large-scale habitats being created on mineralsites for people and for wildlife. Here is an opportunity for a major industryand the planning system to work together with nature conservationorganisations to provide vast public good by making this vision a reality.

Mark AveryDirector of Conservation, The RSPB

Minerals sites have the potential to enhance biodiversity and to provide apublic benefit at the end of their working lives through restoration. Demandfor minerals in England is ongoing, with the location of extraction defined byunderlying geology.

As part of the Minerals Restoration Potential (MRP) project, the RSPB hascreated a Geographical Information System (GIS) model, to assess everyactive mineral site in England for its potential to support UK BAP priorityhabitats. The results of this model have shown that the potential contributionof the minerals industry to UK BAP targets is immense. For example,focussing efforts on 412 mineral sites within 1 km of nine priority habitat typeswould see existing UK BAP habitat creation targets met for those habitats.

Current end-use plans are not achieving this potential. Whilst natureconservation features on many sites as part of an amenity end-use, large-scale habitat creation of the kind that maximises benefits for biodiversity andpeople, is not occurring.

The RSPB has a vision for large-scale mosaics of appropriately sited, priorityBAP habitats created on mineral sites. These would make space for wildlife,contributing substantially to UK BAP habitat creation targets, and providenatural space for people to relax and enjoy time away from the intensity ofmodern life.

Following a survey, as part of the MRP project, we now understand the mainblocks preventing habitat creation on mineral sites. There is a need tomaintain and build on ever-developing momentum for change in therestoration of minerals sites to ensure the potential identified in this report isdelivered. In particular, the RSPB believes the following recommendationsare key to ensuring our vision of mineral site restoration for wildlife and forpeople is realised:

1. Securing funding for long-term management will unlock many moreopportunities by making nature conservation a more attractive option tolandowners. Guidance must be provided to facilitate this through localplanning policies (including for minerals) and a revised Mineral PlanningStatement on reclamation of sites.

2. Regional and local planning policies and site allocations should supporthabitat creation on mineral sites.

3. Minerals planning guidance 7: Reclamation of mineral workings is nolonger fit for purpose and must be reviewed by Department forCommunities and Local Government in the next 2 years, with fullstakeholder engagement.

4. Appropriate habitat creation can be a solution to the identified problem ofbird-strike. A risk assessment approach must be taken by safeguardingauthorities and Mineral Planning Authorities.

Executive summary

Meadow created at FarnhamQuarry, Hanson.Alice Davies (RSPB)

3

Introduction

The minerals industryin England

Minerals are natural resources withmany uses. Many products we takefor granted – from paper to glass,cosmetics to toothpaste – aremanufactured using materialsderived from quarrying.

Although a finite resource, demandfor minerals is ongoing, and everyyear nearly four tonnes ofaggregates are needed per head ofthe population in the UK1. The use ofrecycled aggregate is increasing, butthere is still considerable demandfor primary aggregate. In 2006,predicted demand was for 247million tonnes of aggregate, ofwhich 191 million tonnes will befrom primary sources2.

Opportunities forhabitat creation

During the second half of the20th century there was a massivereduction in the area of semi-naturalwildlife habitats in England due tochanges in agriculture, the plantingof non-native conifer forests, andincreasing urbanisation. Theremaining areas of habitat were inmany cases reduced to small andoften isolated fragments. Thesepatches of habitat are extremelyvulnerable, supporting reduced andisolated populations of plants andanimals that will struggle to respondto challenges like climate change.

Habitat creation can reverse thishistorical loss. Existing fragmentscan be buffered and linked. Taking

Mineral sites are unique. Depositscan only be extracted where theyexist – therefore the locations ofsites are defined by the underlyinggeology. The extraction is atemporary land-use, though somequarries may be worked for anumber of decades. At the end oftheir working life all sites must berestored, presenting particularopportunities for nature conservation.

For the purposes of this report,mineral extraction includes thewinning of the following materials:

• sand and gravel• clay and brick-making material• soft rock, such as chalk• hard rock, such as limestone and

igneous formations• open cast coal.

Minerals extraction inEngland is ongoing, andprovides an opportunityfor restoration of largeareas of land

LEFT AND BELOW: Alice Davies (RSPB)

4

Lapwing flock above wet grasslandDavid Kjaer (rspb-images.com)

Dead fishDavid Kjaer (rspb-images.com)

CorncrakeAndy Hay (rspb-images.com)

opportunities to create new habitataround existing fragments will helpto secure the future of our bestwildlife sites by making them largerand more sustainable. New patchescan be created, providing 'steppingstones' and making an otherwiseintensively managed landscapemore permeable to wildlife. Creatingnew habitat also takes some of thepressure off existing fragments,allowing more people to enjoywildlife-rich areas withoutthreatening fragile sites.

In 2005, over 64,000 ha of land inEngland was under planningpermission for the active workingof minerals. This represents asnapshot of minerals extraction – atany one time a similar area is likelyto be under active permissions. As

Habitat creation allows usto reverse historicallosses of semi-naturalhabitats

LEFT: Nosterfield nature reserve, once asand and gravel quarry. Alice Davies (RSPB)

BELOW: Lapwing. Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

each site is worked, it must berestored to an end-use agreed withthe relevant Mineral PlanningAuthority (MPA).

The winning of minerals thereforepresents an opportunity for habitatcreation on a very large scale. TheRSPB has a vision of Futurescapes –large-scale habitat creation forwildlife and for people3. Mineralsites could offer an unprecedentedopportunity to create Futurescapes,which is why the RSPB has beenresearching their potential nationally.

Past mineral extraction has resultedin the development of some goodwildlife habitats, either throughplanned restoration or through beingleft to natural processes alone. Over600 SSSIs have been designated in

former quarries, often for theirgeological interest exposed by theextraction process. In recent years,the mineral extraction industry hasdeveloped expertise and newtecniques to create wildlife habitaton mineral sites. Our understandingof how to restore for biodiversity isbetter than ever before.

Potential for habitat creation shouldnever outweigh the importance ofretaining existing priority wildlifehabitats. These should be fullysafeguarded from direct extractionand indirect impacts.

5

6

Restoring mineral sites to richwildlife habitats improves thequality of peoples' lives in a varietyof ways:

• it can support and generateeconomic activity

Jobs in the nature conservationsector, requiring skills such ascountryside management, naturalsciences, visitor services andenvironmental education, and thosesupported by the natural heritage,play a significant role in ruraldevelopment. For example, the1,000 jobs supported by the RSPBreserves in the UK are valuable as adirect source of jobs and for theseasonal and occupational diversitythey bring to rural areas.Employment on the RSPB’sreserves averages 7.1 full timeequivalent (FTE) jobs per 1,000 ha ofproductive land8.

The overall impact on economicactivity for local economies is evenlarger given the spending ofconservation workers and visitorsalike that support further activity in

a range of economic sectors,like construction and hospitality.Managed wildlife habitat alsooffers a valuable increase in thevariety of employment available,helping to diversify localeconomies and enhancing localand regional identity.

• it can provide a valuableresource to sustain andenhance our health

Physical inactivity is a majorpreventable health risk, affectingabout 60% of the population andcosting the UK economy more than£8 billion a year. It leads directly tochronic disease and lack ofindependence in the elderly.

Physical activities involving anenvironmental experience is asustainable way to improve publichealth. During green exercise, likethe 1.1 million visits to the RSPBreserves each year, physicalexertion becomes an unnoticedsecondary benefit from theenjoyable primary activity of beingoutdoors enjoying nature7.

New research is also showing howthe proximity and quality of natureaffects our psychological wellbeing.The World Health Organisationestimates that depression anddepression-related illness will becomethe greatest source of ill-health by202010. Nature, through the role itplays in stimulating and encouragingphysical activity, and through thedirect impact it has on our emotionalstate, can help alleviate a range ofpsychological problems11.

This positive correlation betweennatural green space and physical andpsychological wellbeing is, however,seldom reflected in health carepolicies, planning guidelines oreconomic strategies. By creatingwildlife-rich habitat on mineral sites,local communities could be happierand healthier.

• it offers educationalopportunities

Learning experiences in the realworld, such as visits to naturereserves, add significantly to achild's education. A quality outdoor

Restoration for wildlife benefits people

In the UK, uses of wild biodiversitydirectly support over 35,000 full-

time equivalent (FTE) jobs and contribute over £4.8 billion to GDP9.

David Levenson (rspb-images.com)

Restoration of mineralsites for wildlife canbenefit localeconomies, publichealth and education

educational experience deliversbenefits including greater depth ofunderstanding and improvedlearning across all curriculumsubjects, and a more powerful graspof environmental issues12.

Contact with nature is alsoassociated with:– improved children’s behaviour

and self-discipline– enhanced emotional

development in school children– reduced crime and aggression,

and improved communityintegration7

– increased physical activity, whichimproves schoolwork andcognitive functioning.

Direct contact with naturefascinates children, and rich wildlifehabitats provide an array ofopportunities and activities for 'realworld' learning that can play a rolein combating the likelihood of futuregenerations becoming inactive,obese adults.

• and it can contribute to theregeneration of sustainablecommunities

Wherever communities needregenerating, biodiversity andnatural green space can make a realdifference to the quality of bothurban and rural living. Wildlife richhabitat can act as a vehicle forlandscape-scale environmentalenhancement; as a symbol of anattractive location; as a focal pointfor accessing and enjoying naturalgreen space; and as a catalyst forbetter health. The restoration ofmineral sites provides a greatopportunity to improve landscapesand help a location portray a positiveimage – an attractive place forpeople to live and work.

Case Study: Old Moor

Old Moor is located in the Dearne Valley, just south east of Barnsley.It is a wonderful example of how habitat creation in a post-industriallandscape can bring substantial social and economic benefits to alocal community.

This RSPB reserve attracts in excess of 65,000 visitors per year,mostly from the local area, and employs 24 members of staff.Facilities include a visitor centre with shop as well as a restaurant andconference meeting rooms which are regularly used by localbusinesses and community groups. A local sourcing policy increasesthe long-term viability of other business in the area. For example, alocal company that sources local sustainable timber supplies woodchips that are produced to specification for the boiler at the reserve.The wood chips are stored and delivered by a local farmer.

Over 10,000 people participate annually in the events and outreachprogramme thanks to the support of the Heritage Lottery Fund, YorkshireForward, WREN and many others. This includes 4,000 school childrenfrom 80 different schools that visit Old Moor as part of the LivingClassrooms programme. The children get a chance to be outside ingreen space, and to learn and play games built around wildlife and thenatural world. The reserve is also enjoyed by a number of local walkingand health groups.

The stunning landscape created at Old Moor.Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

7

Enjoying the view at the Gannet Café.Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

8

In 1992, the UK Government, togetherwith over 150 other countries, signedThe Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) at the 'Earth Summit' in Riode Janeiro. This was one of severalinitiatives that together form anInternational Agreement onSustainable Development, Agenda 21.

As part of its response to the CBDthe UK Government publishedBiodiversity: The UK Action Plan in1994. This sets out the broadstrategy for conserving andenhancing wild species and wildlifehabitats in the UK. It also initiated theproduction of detailed action plans(between 1995 and 1999) to guidethe work needed to conserve theindividual habitats and species mostin need of conservation in the UK.

The original UK Habitat Action Planscontained targets for themaintenance, restoration and, inmany cases, expansion of thepriority habitat. Expansion of existinghabitat extent is important in order

to start to redress historical habitatloss, create more habitat for priorityspecies and help wildlife withstandpressures and challenges. Some ofthese targets have expired, a fewhave been met and all terrestrialhabitat targets have now beenrevised. The revised habitat targetsfor England were published inNovember 2006 as part of theupdate of the England BiodiversityStrategy4 (see table 1).

Habitat creation on mineral sitesoffers the minerals industry,working together with plannersand conservation organisations, anopportunity to contribute to theUK Biodiversity Action Plan(UK BAP) targets.

Planning policy context

Minerals planning in England issupported by:• Planning Policy Statements

(PPSs) – formerly Planning PolicyGuidance Notes (PPGs)

• Mineral Planning Statements(MPSs) – formerly MineralPlanning Guidance Notes (MPGs).

Their content guides MineralPlanning Authorities on the writingof Minerals and Waste DevelopmentFrameworks (M&WDFs), which setlocal policy to regulate theextraction of minerals.

Advice on restoration and aftercareof mineral sites is contained inMineral Planning Guidance 7:Reclamation of Mineral Workings5

(MPG7), published in 1996. Thisrecommends only three types ofrestoration: agriculture, forestry andamenity. During the post-war period,most restoration was to agriculturalland, and this remains the dominantend-use today (over 50% of mineralsites include agriculture as an end-use). Forestry is an infrequent end-use with less than 5% of sitesincluding this as an end-use.Amenity has gradually become amore common end-use, and natureconservation has fallen within thiscategory, often as a small anduntargeted part of wider amenity use.

Planning Policy Statement 9:Biodiversity and GeologicalConservation published in 2005gives strong support to biodiversityat every level of the planningsystem. It encourages planners toenhance biodiversity, including the'restoration or creation of newpriority habitats'6. Minerals sitespresent a good opportunity for localauthorities to achieve this, and tocontribute to local and UK BAP targets.

Table 1UK BAP Habitat Expansion Targets for England by 2015

Habitat Current Expansion % of existingextent (ha) target (ha) habitat

Lowland dry acid grassland 20,142 276 1.4Native woodland 535,000 53,000 10Wood pasture and parkland 6,000 120 2Lowland calcareous grassland 38,687 8,426 22Lowland heathland 58,000 7,600 13Purple moor grass and rush pasture 21,544 151 0.7Wet reedbeds 5,200 1,900 36.5Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 170,000 1,250 0.7Saline lagoons 1,205 100 8Lowland meadows 7,282 256 2.5Upland hay meadows 870 72 8

The UK BAP is the Government's commitmentto biodiversity and mineral sites offer anopportunity to contribute on a large scale

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan

Silver-spotted skipper. Jim Asher

9

A vision for the future

Nature conservation is becoming amore common feature of mineralsite restoration. Thanks to increasingenthusiasm and commitment withinthe minerals industry and planningauthorities, there are now severalexcellent examples of large-scalepriority habitat creation that go farbeyond the amenity ponds andtree-planting that were typical ofthe past. However, whilstdemonstrating the potential, theyremain only a small fraction of whatcould be achieved.

The RSPB has a vision for mineralsplanning that sees many moresites with habitat creation as anend-use, with these sites at thecore of wider landscape scaleconservation projects.

These would contribute substantiallyto the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, asthis report will show. In doing so,associated species would gainsufficient habitat to adapt tochallenges such as climate change.Populations of our most vulnerableplants and animals would thereforebe more secure. Communities wouldalso benefit – with large naturalspaces offering people places inwhich to walk, relax and enjoy timeaway from the pace of everyday life7.

The enthusiasm and expertisealready exists to achieve this vision.If central government, localauthorities, mineral operators andnature conservation organisationswork together, it can happen.

Case study: Paxton Pits

Paxton Pits is located west of Cambridge in the valley of the RiverGreat Ouse. Largely through community advocacy and support, part ofthe gravel pit complex was designated as a Local Nature Reserve in1988 and has since been managed for its wildlife interest byHuntingdonshire District Council. The reserve provides valuablegreenspace (78 ha) in an area under increasing development pressure.Extremely popular among local people, the Reserve has also become aregional attraction, with over 120,000 visitors a year. The Friends ofPaxton Pits nature reserve supports all aspects of the reserve throughvolunteer involvement. Founded in 1995, the group now has over 1860members and is campaigning for an enlarged nature reserve thatwould follow Aggregate Industries' (AI) proposed extraction of theremaining gravel reserves at the site.

While this approval would be a major departure from the County'sDevelopment Plan, permission will be granted providing AI can meetconditions which include the ‘exceptional community benefit’ providedby an enlarged nature reserve. The local community is closely involvedwith developing the plans (through The Friends), and hasdemonstrated its support for the proposals as the MPA received 326letters in support of the scheme and only three objections. If approved,the nature reserve will extend to 285 hectares with the creation of newareas of reedbed, scrub, wet grassland and wet woodland.

Our vision is for large-scale mosaics ofappropriately sited, priority BAP habitatscreated on mineral sites

Paxton Pits nature reserve, Cambridgeshire.Ray Matthews

Family pond-dipping at Paxton Pits.Jim Stevenson

Otter at Paxton Pits.Howard Birley

Needingworth. Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

What contribution can mineralsites make to the UK BAP?

In 2005, there were around 1,300active mineral sites in England,covering over 64,000 ha. Of these,only 173 sites are not suitable forany priority habitat creation. Theremaining 55,794 ha has thepotential to support one or more of17 priority BAP habitats (see maps).

The potential to create priorityhabitat on each of the 1,300 activesites in England has beeninvestigated using a modeldeveloped in a GeographicalInformation System (GIS) (seemethodology). This process hasidentified all sites where each of

17 priority BAP habitats can becreated according to geological,soil and hydrological conditions,and then prioritised this dependingon proximity to existing fragments ofthe same habitat. Restoring sitesadjacent to existing fragments ofsemi-natural habitats is the highestpriority, because this offers thepotential to expand and buffer theexisting fragment, and potentially linkmore than one fragment together.

The potential areas of each priorityhabitat that could be created frommineral sites across England arehuge (see table 2). For example,

over 50,000 ha of native woodlandor almost 25,000 ha of lowlandmeadow are possible. Comparingthese areas to the BAP habitatcreation targets (for England by2015) shows that the size of thecontribution habitat creation onmineral sites could make isremarkable (see table 3).

Focussing efforts on 412 mineralsites within 1km of nine priorityhabitat types would see existing UKBAP habitat creation targets met,and significant progress madetowards targets for native woodlandand lowland calcareous grassland.

Map 1Existing lowland heathland patches in Dorset (from theRSPB's Heathland extent and potential project), alongsideminerals sites where lowland heathland can potentially becreated, and their relative priority.

Key ■ Highest priority sites for lowland heathland creation –adjacent to existing habitat

■ High priority sites for lowland heathland creation –within 1 km of existing habitat

■ Mineral sites not suitable for lowland heathlandcreation

■ Existing fragments of lowland heathland

10

Map 2All mineral sites in Englandwhere one or more BAPhabitats can be created.

Table 2Areas of habitat that could be created on minerals sites: total area; siteswithin 1 km; sites adjacent to existing habitat.Note: certain sites may be suitable for more than one habitat, so there will be someoverlap. Native woodlands are considered together in the latest BAP revision –combining four previous habitat types.

Mineral sites canmake a substantialcontribution to UKBAP targets

Potential area that could be created (ha)

Priority habitats Total Within 1 km Adjacentof existing to existing

habitat habitat

Lowland dry acid grassland 9,326 5,607 2,477

Native woodland - combined 50,154 9,749 3,425Lowland beech and yew woodland 10,320 1,332 327Upland mixed ashwoods 2,319 228 217Upland oakwood 17,583 2,206 334Wet woodland 19,932 5,983 2,547

Lowland wood-pasture and parkland 10,494 3,791 1,183

Lowland calcareous grassland 3,697 2,105 1,033

Upland calcareous grassland 394 374 169

Lowland heathland 13,635 10,912 9,060

Upland heathland 2,613 1,944 1,564

Purple moor grass and rush pastures 11,337 1,587 213

Wet reedbeds 8,311 3,474 1,847

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 11,284 8,471 5,767

Saline lagoons 716 134 32

Lowland meadows 24,784 4,890 834

Upland hay meadows 1,222 183 0

Coastal vegetated shingle 260 194 194

Table 3Proportion of BAP habitat creation targets for England by 2015 that could bemet by sites where existing habitat is within 1 km, or adjacent to site.Note: certain sites may be suitable for more than one habitat, so there will be someoverlap.

Proportion (%)of BAP target met by

Priority habitats BAP Mineral sites Mineral sitestarget within 1 km adjacent(ha) of existing to existing

habitat habitat

Lowland dry acid grassland 276 >100 >100

Native woodland 53,000 18 6

Lowland wood-pasture and parkland 120 >100 >100

Lowland calcareous grassland 8,426 25 12

Lowland heathland 7,600 >100 >100

Purple moor grass and rush pastures 151 >100 >100

Wet reedbeds 1,715 >100 >100

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 1,250 >100 >100

Saline lagoons 100 >100 32

Lowland meadows 256 >100 >100

Upland hay meadows 72 >100 0

11

FROM TOP TO BOTTOM:Lowland heathland and

natterjack toad.Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

Perfoliate penny-cress. Peter Creed

What is the current contribution?

Most active sites have an agreedend-use set in place. At presentthese are supporting the creation ofonly a fraction of the habitat extentthat is possible. Details of thecurrent end-use plans for each ofthe 1,300 sites collected from MPAallow comparison of what is possiblewith what is being achieved (seemethodology).

The current contribution thatmineral site end-use plans make toBAP targets is far below thepotential contribution identified inthis report for all but one of thepriority BAP habitats identified (seetable 4). There is therefore asubstantial gap between what ispossible, and what is being achieved(see figure 1).

Even the highest priority sites, thoseadjacent to existing semi-natural

habitat, are usually due to berestored to an alternative end-use (seetable 5). These unique opportunitiesto buffer our remaining semi-naturalhabitat are being lost under the currentsystem and should be re-examined inlight of this report's findings.

What end-uses are takingpreference?

Agriculture is currently by far themost common end-use of mineralsites. Over 600 sites includeagriculture as part (usually all) oftheir end-use. Forestry is relativelyrare as an end-use, included on only57 sites. Amenity is the third end-use recommended in MineralsPlanning Guidance 7, and covers abroad range of options. Watersports, golf courses, fishing lakesand many other forms of recreation,are common.

Nature conservation is alsoconsidered an amenity end-use, andfeatures in many end-use plans.However, nature conservation istaken to mean everything from awildlife pond, hedgerow or smallpatch of woodland to large mosaicsof priority BAP habitats such as wetgrassland, wet woodland, reedbedand open water. We have shownthat most opportunities to createlarge-scale priority habitats thatcontribute to BAP targets andprovide real natural areas for peopleare being missed.

The opportunity tomake substantialcontributions to UKBAP targets is notbeing achieved undercurrent end-use plans

Figure 1The shortfall between the number of sites where habitat could be created andwhere it forms part, or all, of the current end-use plan.

Lowland Wet Coastal and Salineheathland reedbeds floodplain lagoons

grazing marsh

Key Number of sites:■ where habitat can be created ■ where habitat is part of agreed end-use■ where habitat can be created ■ where habitat is only agreed end-use

adjacent to existing habitat184

6355

9

143

1320

0

93

45

61

10

1 1

0

Reed bunting.David Kjaer (rspb-images.com)

12

Table 4The proportion of UK BAP targets that could be met by habitat creation onminerals sites and the proportion actually met by existing end-use plans wherethis is the only end-use. Note: information from restoration plans is not specificenough to compare directly to priority BAP habitats in all cases. For example, lowlandwood-pasture and parkland can only be compared to 'nature conservation woodland'and lowland meadows are compared to 'semi-natural grassland'. Where more thanone end-use is recorded for a site, the area of each individual end-use could not becollated, and so these sites cannot be included here.

Priority Habitats BAP Potential Currenttarget (ha) contribution measurable

to BAP contributiontarget (%) to BAP

target (%)

Lowland dry acid grassland 276 >100 >100

Native woodland 53,000 95 0

Lowland wood-pasture and parkland 120 >100 67

Lowland calcareous grassland 8,426 44 2

Lowland heathland 7,600 >100 4

Purple moor grass and rush pastures 151 >100 0

Wet reedbeds 1,715 >100 0

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 1,250 >100 6

Saline lagoons 100 >100 0

Lowland meadows 256 >100 16

Upland hay meadows 72 >100 0

Table 5Numbers of sites adjacent to existing habitat for each habitat type, and ofthese, the number for which the same (or similar, see above) habitat is part orall of the agreed end-use plans.

Priority Habitats No. of sites No. of these No. of thesewhere habitat sites where sites wherecan be created habitat habitat

adjacent to is part of is onlyexisting agreed agreedfragment end-use end-use

Lowland dry acid grassland 60 0 0

Native woodland 36 9 2

Lowland wood-pasture and parkland 24 3 0

Lowland calcareous grassland 24 5 2

Upland calcareous grassland 3 0 0

Lowland heathland 63 33 6

Upland heathland 50 14 10

Purple moor grass and rush pastures 1 0 0

Wet reedbeds 13 3 0

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 45 4 0

Saline lagoons 1 0 0

Lowland meadows 10 3 1

Upland hay meadows 0 0 0

Open water 57 20 3

13

FROM TOP TO BOTTOM:Heath tiger beetle and

Sandy Heath Quarry.AndyHay (rspb-images.com)

Active workings at Lydd quarry.David Kjaer (rspb-images.com)

14

Why isn’t this potentialbeing met?

Although some fantastic habitatcreation schemes are taking placeon mineral sites this is far fromwidespread. There is, therefore, areal need to share experience andexpertise and to disseminate bestpractice. The need for such anapproach has been highlighted instakeholder feedback duringseminars held as part of the RSPBMinerals Restoration Potential(MRP) project. Communicationbetween all involved in mineral siterestoration needs to improve inorder to increase benefits for natureand local communities.

The specific factors preventing habitatcreation will vary regionally, and evenfrom site to site. However, somefactors are relevant on a nationalscale, and these were investigated ina survey carried out as part of theRSPB MRP project. The responses ofover 140 mineral planners, operatingcompanies and nature conservationorganisations highlighted blocks

preventing habitat creation onmineral sites at a national scale.

Nature conservation is 'almost always'considered when deciding the end-use for a minerals site by 70% ofrespondents (n=73). However, thisconsideration is not being translatedinto habitats that would maximisebenefits for wildlife. Techniques forhabitat creation on mineral sites havedeveloped in recent years, and allkinds of habitats can now becreated. However, there remains agap in understanding about thescope of possibilities in natureconservation. Although small scalefeatures such as hedges and pondshave a value, it is the restoration ofpriority UK BAP habitats that willmake the biggest difference both tonational targets and to theenhancement of local communities.

Four main issues emerged from thesurvey as the most likely reasonsacting to prevent nature conservation

ABOVE: Bullfinch.Mark Hamblin (rspb-images.com)

RIGHT: Minerals planners,industry and natureconservation representativesworking together at astakeholder seminar as part ofthe Minerals RestorationPotential project.Alice Davies (RSPB)

15

from being a more common end-useof mineral sites. Mineral planners,operating companies and natureconservation organisations allhighlighted the same factors:

• Lack of support from thelandowner (24%, n=30)

The proportion of sites worked whilstleased from a landowner variesbetween mineral planning authorities.Where this is the case, however, thelandowner exerts a very strongdegree of influence in deciding theend-use of a site (landowners are themost influential factor in deciding anend-use for 25% of planners and 21%of operators). Showing how habitatcreation can provide an incomethrough a variety of funding sources,and the public benefit of doing so,may help overcome this reticence.

• Inadequate financial returnfrom a conservation end-use(18%, n=22)

Financial concernsand the threat ofbird strike toaircraft seem to bethe strongestfactors preventinghabitat creation onmineral sites

and,• Difficulty in securing long-term

conservation management ofthe site (12%, n=15)

Nature conservation is not perceivedto produce a direct income in theway that other end-uses such asagriculture or formal recreation do,and this may well influencelandowners' limited support fornature conservation. However, inmany cases habitat creation is lessexpensive than restoration toagriculture, for example, as in manycases it requires less land-formingand other inputs.

Securing long-term conservationmanagement is dependent on thesecurity of long-term funding.However, costs of long-termmanagement can be met through avariety of means, including agri-environment payments or fundingsecured by an operator, and there isa strong economic case for doing so.

• Proximity to airfield (threat ofbird strike) (10% n=13)

All new mineral extractionproposals within 13 km of anactive airfield must take thepotential risk of bird strike to aircraftinto account when deciding an end-use. This is for good reason; birdscan cause serious damage to aircraftif they collide.

Decisions on what constitutes anacceptable end-use will ultimatelybe made by the MPA, followingconsultation with the appropriateaerodrome. The particular risksassociated with an extractionproposal and its afteruse will beassessed on a case-by-case basis.However, in many instances, BAPhabitats which do not attract birdslikely to present a bird strike risk canprovide ideal solutions.

College Lake Wildlife Centre,Buckinghamshire.Jim Asher (BBOWT)

13

How do we achieve this vision?

The minerals industry is alreadymaking some contribution to UKBAP habitat creation targets, but, asthis report shows, the potentialcontribution is enormous.

Our vision is for large-scale mosaicsof appropriately sited, priority BAPhabitats. These would make spacefor wildlife, allowing populations ofplants and animals to expand and

Case study: Needingworth

Needingworth quarry covers 975 ha of land in Cambridgeshire, making itone of the largest sand and gravel extraction sites in the UK. The restorationproposed in the original planning application submitted in 1994 wasalmost entirely for restoration to arable agriculture, based on a presumptionthat the land was of high agricultural quality (Grade 3a). However,Needingworth is now set to be a nature reserve, of which 460 ha is tobecome reedbed; enough to meet 40% of the UK BAP target for that habitat.

Change began when the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food(MAFF) surveyed the site and found that the soil was a lower qualitythan previously anticipated. At the same time, during the consultationstage, the RSPB, Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust and the Wildfowl andWetlands Trust highlighted the opportunity to create a wetland ofnational and arguably international importance at the site. ARC (nowHanson) committed to undertake a feasibility study for the proposedwetland restoration as part of a Section 106 agreement. Public meetingsand consultation helped generate overwhelming support for the project.The public were given the opportunity to put forward their views andideas on the restoration proposals and to influence modifications to thefinal plan. With 32 km of public access footpaths and cycle paths withinthe site, Needingworth will become a major asset for the local community.

Following the feasibility study and public engagement, a decision wastaken to change the restoration plans, and a new planning applicationwas approved by Cambridgeshire County Council in 1999. This projectreceived the Royal Town Planning Institute Award for PlanningAchievement in 2000, and was nominated for the 2002 EuropeanPlanning Awards. The site is being progressively restored by Hansonand passed to the RSPB for long-term management.

become robust in the face ofchallenges. The same areas wouldprovide natural space important forpeople to relax and enjoy time awayfrom the intensity of modern life.They would contribute hugely to theUK BAP habitat creation targets, andbenefit public health and localeconomies. The enthusiasm andexpertise to create high-qualitypriority BAP habitat of this kind

already exists, as these case studiesshow. However, change is neededand we believe the followingrecommendations will help makethis vision real:

16

TOP: The site before extraction. Norman Sills (RSPB)

MIDDLE: The same view following extraction and in the early stages ofrestoration. Sophie Leadsom (RSPB)

BOTTOM: The developing reedbeds fenced to protect grazing by wildfowl.Alice Davies (RSPB)

1517

Securing long-termmanagement

There is a strong economic case forhabitat creation as an end-use ofmineral sites. Firstly, it can be lesscostly to restore to a priority habitatthan to some other end-uses. It alsooffers a cost-effective means ofcontributing to the UK BAP, sincethe land is already disturbed andmust be restored to some form ofland-use by the operating company.

Secondly, whilst some natureconservation may not return a directincome, there are wider economicreasons, including public health andquality of life, that mean securingfunding to ensure habitat creation asan end-use and its long-termmanagement make good sense.

There are a number of options availableto support long-term management ofhabitat created on minerals sites:• continued financial support from

the operating company• Landfill Tax Credits Scheme• Aggregates Levy Sustainability

Fund• Local Authority funding streams• Environmental Stewardship agri-

environment support.

Of these, financial support fromoperating companies is mostcommonly practiced. This can besecured as a planning obligation atthe application stage (as a Section106 Agreement), or throughmanagement agreements. Localpolicy outlining how to securesuch commitment has been put inplace in Oxfordshire (see casestudy), successfully facilitating fundsand encouraging nature conservationas an end-use of mineral sites. Thismodel should be adopted by MineralPlanning Authorities across England.

Aggregates Levy SustainabilityFunds, Landfill Tax Credits Schemeand Environmental Stewardship agri-environment support are currentlynot widely used as sources offunding. Their use in funding ongoinghabitat management should,however, be encouraged through arevised minerals planning statement,updating advice in the currentMineral Planning Guidence 7.

Case study: Financing long-term management of sites inOxfordshire

Oxfordshire County Council have an innovative means of ensuringenduring long-term financial provision to secure the conservationmanagement of mineral sites. The Minerals Local Plan includespolicies that define how operators should provide long-termfunding as a prerequisite to receiving planning permission.

Two sites within the Lower Windrush Valley Project area, nearWitney, illustrate how this works. At Standlake Common, managedby SITA, a percentage levy per tonne of extracted mineral has beenring-fenced for management of the site. At Rushey Common,Smiths of Bletchendon have agreed a detailed plan with theauthority to ensure direct management of the site over 20 years. Inboth cases, this has allowed the creation of mosaics of wetlandand grassland habitats with the security of guaranteedmanagement into the future.

Standlake Common nature reserve. Alison Hopewell

By securing long-term conservationmanagement of sites, andincreasing the financial return from anature conservation end-use throughfinancial provision, habitat creationwill become a more appealing end-use to both mineral planningauthorities and landowners.

17

Bird strike: a riskassessment basedapproach

Restoration plans for mineral siteswithin safeguarding zones aroundairfields will be scrutinised for theirpotential to increase the risk of bird-strike to aircraft. 54% of active sandand gravel workings occur withinsafeguarding zones13, and extractingminerals in river floodplainsinevitably leads to wet restoration ofsome description.

The assessment of risk of bird strikebrought by a new extraction shouldnot be regarded as a block tohabitat creation, rather it should

Ensuring planning policysupport

Habitat creation on mineral sitesshould be supported at all levels ofthe planning system. Planning PolicyStatement 9: Biodiversity andGeological Conservation (PPG9)and accompanying guidanceencourages the enhancement ofbiodiversity, including the'restoration or creation of newpriority habitats'6 through RegionalSpatial Strategies (RSSs) and LocalDevelopment Frameworks (LDFs).

Local authorities are advised inPPG9 to 'identify any areas or sitesfor the restoration or creation of new

Case study: Reducing bird strike risk in Surrey

The skies above Surrey are extremely busy with commercial air trafficwith two of the world’s busiest airports (Heathrow and Gatwick) andseveral other significant airfields nearby. Here, the Mineral PlanningAuthority, Surrey County Council, has developed a close relationshipwith BAA, consulting them on all planning applications for mineralsites after-use as conflicts of interest can arise, particularly regardingthe risk of bird-strike. However, these can be resolved to a positiveoutcome, by assessing restoration plans on a case-by-case basis.

As an aerodrome operator, BAA has a statutory responsibility toensure that their aerodromes and surrounding airspace are safe at alltimes for use by aircraft. However this does not preclude the creationof suitable priority BAP habitats which will not attract birds likely topresent a bird strike risk. Priority BAP habitats can be created whichdo not attract large or flocking birds and an early dialogue, such asthat between Surrey County Council and BAA, can provide resultswhich are acceptable to both parties.

Securing long-termmanagement,managing the risks ofbird strike and betterplanning policysupport will help usachieve our vision

enable end-uses that don't add tothe background risk. The creationof predominantly dry, or even wet(eg reedbed) habitats of highbiodiversity value, should, if plannedwell, not increase the risk to aircraft.

The current risk eliminationapproach of some safeguardingauthorities means opportunities tocreate high quality habitat, withoutincreasing bird-strike risk, arebeing missed unnecessarily. A caseby case assessment of risk, andearly dialogue betweenstakeholders, can enable creativesolutions to be agreed, and shouldbe adopted across the country (seecase study).

18

LEFT: Reedbed. Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

BELOW: Aircraft taking off. instockphoto.com

priority habitats which contribute toregional targets’ in their LDFs.Mineral sites provide an opportunityto identify areas for priority habitatcreation, and policies to supportcreation and management of priorityhabitats on these sites can be setout in the LDF.

Minerals and Waste DevelopmentFrameworks (M&WDFs) are thestrategic mineral planning documentsreplacing Minerals Local Plans. Theyprovide an opportunity to identifyand secure appropriate habitatcreation on mineral sites at theproposed allocations stage. Theearlier in the planning process thathabitat creation potential of a site is

Case Study: The Swale and Ure Washlands Project

The floodplains of the rivers Swale and Ure contain vast quantities ofsands, gravels and clays laid down by receding ice-sheets during thelast Ice Age. This mineral resource has been quarried since beforerecords began, and numerous active quarries dot the landscapetoday. Historically this area supported a diverse wetland environment– as evidenced by the extensive damp grasses, sedges and reedsfound in paleo-archaeological records as a distinctive component ofits intrinsically rich landscape. The Swale and Ure Washlands projecttakes a visionary approach to using the restoration of mineral sites inthe area to recreate some of this lost landscape.

At the heart of delivering this vision is the Minerals Site After-UseStrategy. This document is designed to support the production of theNorth Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework, bybeing adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document. The strategydescribes how sites within the area can be restored to maximisebenefits for biodiversity and people. By combining the support ofoperating companies, statutory bodies and the mineral planningauthority a very real opportunity to create a wonderful landscape thatintegrates communities and wildlife is being realised.

agreed, the easier it is to implementit successfully and secure its long-term management. Both theM&WDF and LDF offer the potentialto integrate habitat creation onmineral sites into landscape-scalehabitat restoration projects, likethose envisaged by the RSPB inFuturescapes3.

Mineral Planning Guidance 7:Reclamation of Mineral Workings(MPG7) was published in 1996.Knowledge, techniques anddemands for different land-useshave changed, and much of thedocument is no longer fit forpurpose. By updating the definitionof nature conservation to include

19

large-scale priority BAP habitatcreation, recognising the potentialcontribution to targets and formallylinking mineral sites as a means ofdelivering them, the revisedminerals policy statement could goa long way in providing support toour vision.

TOP: Nosterfield Quarry, Tarmac.Alice Davies (RSPB)

RIGHT: Nosterfield nature reserve.Alice Davies (RSPB)

Habitat creation as an end-use of mineral sites:

• can achieve so much more for biodiversity – making a substantialcontribution to BAP habitat creation targets

• is an opportunity to give back something to local communities – a naturalspace filled with wildlife, enhancing mental and physical well being andimproving quality of life

• can make economic sense – benefiting local economies, public healthand as a cost-effective means of contributing to the UK BAP.

The RSPB vision is of targeted large-scale habitat creation on many moreminerals sites, benefiting wildlife and people. This report has identified somerecommendations that will help to achieve this vision, and these are set outbelow:

Conclusions

1 Securing funding for long-term management will unlock many moreopportunities by making nature conservation a more attractive option tolandowners. Guidance must be provided to facilitate this through localplanning policies (including for minerals) and a revised MPS onreclamation of sites.

2 Regional and local planning policies and site allocations should supporthabitat creation on mineral sites.

3 Minerals planning guidance 7: Reclamation of mineral workings is nolonger fit for purpose and must be reviewed by DCLG in the next twoyears, with full stakeholder engagement.

4 Appropriate habitat creation can be a solution to the identified problem ofbird-strike. A risk assessment approach must be taken by safeguardingauthorities and Mineral Planning Authorities.

Recommendations

20

FROM TOP TO BOTTOM:Old Moor nature reserve. Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

New habitat offers communities an opportunity for recreation.David Levenson (rspb-images.com)

Stone curlew. Chris Knights (rspb-images.com)

And

y H

ay (r

spb-

imag

es.c

om)

1

References

1 Quarry Products Association, 2006.(www.qpa.org/profile)

2 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,2005. National and RegionalGuidelines for Aggregates Provision inEngland 2001–2016: SecondMonitoring Report. London, UK

3 The RSPB, 2001. Futurescapes:Large-scale Habitat Restoration forWildlife and People. The RoyalSociety for the Protection of Birds,Sandy, UK.

4 Department for Environment Foodand Rural Affairs, 2006. Working withthe Grain of Nature – A Celebration ofProgress and Challenges for theFuture. London, UK

5 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,1996. Mineral Planning Guidance: TheReclamation of Mineral Workings(MPG7). London, UK.

6 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,2006. Planning for Biodiversity andGeological Conservation: A Guide toGood Practice. London, UK.

7 Bird, W., 2004. Natural Fit. The RoyalSociety for the Protection of Birds,Sandy, UK.

8 Sheil A, Rayment M and Burton G.2002. RSPB Reserves and LocalEconomies.

9 The World Conservation Union, 2003.Use of Wild Living Resources in theUK.

10 World Health Organisation, 2001.World Health Report. World HealthOrganisation, Geneva.

11 Pretty J, Griffin M, Peacock J, Hine R,Sellens M and South N. 2005. ACountryside for health and wellbeing:The physical and mental healthbenefits of green exercise. Universityof Essex, Colchester.

12 Thomas and Thompson, 2004.A child's place: why environmentmatters to children. Green Alliance.

13 Henney P J, Cameron D G, MankelowJ M, Spencer N A, Highley D E andSteadman E J. 2003. Implications ofCAA Birdstrike Safeguard Zones forRiver Sand and Gravel Resources inthe Trent Valley. Keyworth,Nottingham, UK.

The Minerals Restoration Potential project began in January 2005 with funding throughthe Minerals Industry Research Organisation (MIRO) as part of the Department forCommunities and Local Government's (DCLG) Sustainable Land-Won and Marine-Dredged Aggregate Minerals Programme. The project set out to understand thecontribution the minerals industry could make to UK BAP habitat creation targets,and to begin to address delivery of this potential contribution. Two outputs will beproduced before the project ends in March 2007, the first of which is this advocacyreport. The second output will be the interactive website 'After Minerals', launchedin late February 2007 and aimed primarily at mineral planners, operating companiesand nature conservation organisations. This will allow access to information on eachof the 1300 active mineral sites in England, showing the habitat(s) that can becreated there, advice on creating them, and case studies of real-life restorations.

Methodology

The results presented in this report originate from two areas of work within the MineralsRestoration Potential project: the GIS modelling of habitat potential, and a survey ofmineral planners, operating companies and nature conservation organisations.

The GIS model

A GIS database of the 1300 active mineral sites (defined as those where working isactively taking place) in England was created by collecting data from 98 MineralPlanning Authorities during 2005. This information on extent of active planningpermission, end-use of the site and whether extraction intercepted the water table,supplemented data licensed from the British Geological Survey (BGS).

Four other sets of data were used in the model:• Soilscapes data licensed from NSRI• BAP habitat inventories downloaded from English Nature and the RSPB's

Heathland Extent and Potential dataset• Land-use within a 1 km buffer of each of the 1,300 sites: semi-natural habitat

digitised from aerial photographs• Joint Character Areas (JCA) downloaded from English Nature.

Habitat creation experts built up a matrix of ecological parameters defining conditionsunder which each of 17 priority BAP habitats would be physically possible. Themodel was built in ArcGIS 9.1 around this matrix of mineral type, soil type,hydrological conditions and broad bio-geographic zones (using JCAs). First, themodel used the parameters to find sites where each habitat was physically possible.Some sites had the potential to support more than one priority BAP habitat type.There is therefore some overlap between the areas of habitat that can be created.

The model then went on to prioritise sites, based on proximity to existing patchesof the same habitat, as shown below:• Priority 1: mineral site adjacent to existing fragment of the semi-natural habitat• Priority 2: mineral site within 1 km of existing fragment of the semi-natural habitat• Priority 3: mineral site within 5 km of existing fragment of the semi-natural habitat• Physically possible: mineral sites with suitable conditions within broad bio-

geographic zone of the semi-natural habitat.

The survey

The survey set out to investigate blocks preventing nature conservation from being amore common end-use of mineral sites. Structured phone interviews with a group ofcore stakeholders allowed investigation of some of the key areas preventing natureconservation. This information was used by the RSPB's Market Research team tocreate an unbiased questionnaire for each of three audience groups: mineral operatingcompanies, mineral planners and nature conservation organisations and ecologists.The questionnaire was printed and sent out by post to over 400 contacts. A total of143 responses were received – and the results of these were collated and analysed.

Background

21

The RSPB is the UK charity working to securea healthy environment for birds and wildlife,helping to create a better world for us all.

UK HeadquartersThe Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DLTel: 01767 680551www.rspb.org.uk

Registered charity no 207076

Funding for this project has been provided by the Minerals Industry ResearchOrganisation (MIRO), as part of the Department of Communities and LocalGovernment’s (DCLG) Sustainable Aggregate Minerals Programme.

David Kjaer (rspb-images.com)