Quarries: Planning Policy

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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 PM_2.5 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 PM_2.5 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 PM_2.5, 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 PM_2.5 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 PM_2.5 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 PM_2.5, 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 PM_2.5. 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 PM_2.5 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 PM_2.5 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.