---

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGGREGATES LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND IN ENGLAND

Note: This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format (50kb) for downloading.
The Adobe Acrobat Reader can be freely downloaded. Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - http://access.adobe.com

See also this News Release (issued 11 April 2002).

Introduction

1. The Finance Act 2001 introduced an aggregates levy from April 2002 to address the environmental costs associated with aggregate extraction. The levy has been set at £1.60 per tonne of aggregates produced. The revenue from the levy will be used to cut employers National Insurance contributions and to finance this Fund.
2. The Department for Environment, Foods and Rural Affairs (Defra) published a consultation document on 2 October on proposals for the Distribution of an Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund in England. The consultation paper built on an earlier Treasury consultation in August 2000 and put forward a number of possibilities. Respondents were asked to provide comments on how these objectives could best be delivered. Copies were sent to a wide range of organisations, which had previously taken part in related consultations, and a number of other interested parties. The consultation paper was also made available on the Defra website.
3. This summary includes the comments from the responses, which were received up to, and including, 27 November 2001.

Consultation Issues

4. The consultation paper invited comments on proposals and for the distribution of the Fund in six sections.

• Section 2: "Delivering environmental improvements" - states the amount of the fund, explains why it was an England only fund, and suggested that the fund was disbursed through existing grant distribution bodies. It also listed the three area of work the fund proposes to support. Particular questions were:
• Do you agree that as a general approach we should use existing programmes and bodies for disbursing the Fund?
• Do you agree we should continue to interpret the aim of the fund in the broad way we have done so? And in particular:
• Do you agree that work should be supported under each of these headings?
• Section 3: "Projects aimed at minimising the demand for primary aggregates" - The Government proposes to use the existing Waste and Resources Action Programme, and the Construction Innovation and Research Management programme to deliver these projects. The programmes under this heading are overcoming market barriers and promoting increased use of alternative materials and recycled aggregates, and research into more sustainable construction and demolition practices. Particular questions were:
• Do you agree that the work outlined above on minimising the demand for primary aggregates should be supported?
• Do you think other work under this heading should be supported? (if so, what?)
• Section 4: "Projects aimed at the promotion of environmentally friendly aggregate extraction" - These projects would aim to minimise the environmental effects of aggregates extraction and transport from both land and seabed. Programmes to support the work under four headings are The Planning Research Programme, the Clean Up Programme and the Department of Transport Local Government and the Region's Freight Facilities Grant. Particular questions were:
• Do you agree that the work outlined above on environmentally friendly aggregate extraction should be supported by the levy
• Do you think other work under this heading should be supported? (if so, what?)
• Section 5: "Reducing local effects of aggregates extraction" - The Government proposed to use English Heritage, Countryside Agency and English Nature to deliver these projects. Comments are invited as to what sort of role Local Authorities could play in operating the 5 listed schemes for local projects. Particular questions were:
• Do you think local authorities should be involved in the process?
• If so, what mechanism should we adopt to minimise the bureaucracy whilst also ensuring that the Fund supports the best projects?
• Do you agree that the work outlined above on reducing the effects of local aggregate extraction should be supported by the Fund?
• Do you think other work under this heading should be supported? (if so, what?)
• Section 6: "Allocating funds to projects" - describes the proposed three-part approach to allocating funds and a proposal of initial allocations over the first two years. Proposed criteria for assessing projects is given. Particular questions were:
• Do you agree with this approach to allocating funds?
• Do you agree with these initial allocations?
• Are there other factors that you think should be considered in finalising allocations? (if so, which?)
• Do you agree with the proposed project criteria?
• Section 7: " Monitoring Review and Reporting" - sets out the aims of the arrangements to be put in place. The question was:
• Do you agree with these arrangements for monitoring, review and reporting?

5. The consultation exercise suggested 3 possible options for the distribution of the Fund.

Projects aimed at minimising the demand for primary aggregates Projects aimed at the promotion of environmentally friendly aggregate extraction and transport Reducing the effect of aggregate extraction

Overall response to the Consultation

6. 474 organisations were sent consultation papers. It is not possible to determine how many accessed the website. The consultation generated a total of 133 responses.
7. The summary of responses to the consultation exercise has been grouped according to the seven sections put forward in the consultation document.

General themes from the consultation

Section 2: Delivering Environmental Improvements

8. Respondents were evenly split on the use of existing programmes and bodies to disburse the funds. There was a coincidence of views where support was not given, or qualified. It was felt that:

• Funds should be additional to and not substitute or duplicate existing schemes
• Agencies should consult with Local Authorities
• The programmes could slow up the implementation process and dilute the potential for broad reaching impact.
• Chosen bodies would be biased towards their own areas of interest.
• Assurance was needed that distributing bodies would be flexible
• After the experience of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, it was important that a framework be established for existing bodies
• Existing bodies are not structured to take on additional responsibilities and have a narrow agenda that would be detrimental to areas that suffer from aggregate extraction;
• Using existing bodies could lead to a lack of focus in expenditure, increase administrative costs and lead to distrust;
• The fund should be administered by a more independent or single body, such as Government Offices or Local Authorities who have better regional knowledge, and/or practitioner bodies;
• "The Fund (in England) should be allocated and managed independently by Defra."

9. A large number of respondents agreed that the aims of the fund should be interpreted in the broad way put forward. However, a few respondents thought disagreement by those who felt that the aims of the fund were too vague and others thought the aims should be widened.
10. There was general support for work to be done under the various headings provided, and generally no view that one category should have a higher priority than others. Some consultees did however favour local projects in areas of aggregates extraction others thought that projects focused on minimising the need for primary aggregates was more consistent with the purpose of the levy than other projects
11. More general comments on the section as a whole were as follows:

• "Yes[agree] but should be kept under review depending on the rate of uptake under each heading"
• "The fund should also be used for judicial test cases, to close quarries that are disused or inappropriate and in revoking permissions without compensation"
• "There is concern about the use of the fund to provide local benefits over and above what may be properly required under planning law"
• "The areas of support should form a hierarchy minimise - reduce impact of remainder - remedy areas already damaged"
• "Fund should support small-scale projects as little as £100 as well as high profile schemes"
• "The rejection of any administrative framework for disbursing the Fund which does not incorporate a degree of local democratic accountability and involvement"
• "dedicated funding for longer periods, say a minimum of 3 years would help to ensure that longer term projects, which are particularly important are delivered"

Section 3: Projects aimed at minimising the demand for primary aggregates

12. Most respondents agreed with the need for work to minimise the demand for primary aggregates. Respondents believe the initiatives would be best delivered through co-ordination between bodies and at a national level. Whilst there was some support for the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) there was concern about whether the close co-operation between WRAP and Construction Innovation Research Management (CIRM) would actually happen. Respondents also wanted to know why, given the role industry has to play here, there is no mention of planners and the planning system. There were requests for the urgent establishment of an Aggregates Advisory Service
13. Respondents were asked to make suggestions for other work that could be supported under this heading. Responses suggested

• Planning -
• "Relevant research through DTLR's Planning Research Programme"
• "Evaluation of the planning system in relation to the guidance and controls on demolition and examination of material sources for major development particularly those requiring Environmental Impact Assessment"
• "Research to examine the extent to which the planning process could facilitate greater use of construction and demolition wastes and secondary aggregates in building projects and identify how this could be achieved "
• "Supporting planners and developers in their efforts to develop less 'resource hungry' development by taking into account not only the efficiency in use of materials, but also in the location and purpose of the development."
• "Work with the relevant Government departments involved in large infrastructure projects (for example, roads and flood defences) to ensure a co-ordinated effort promote the best alternative measures for sustainable construction and procurement."
• Aggregates Substitutes
• The promotion regionally, of alternative materials and recycled aggregates consistent with that for primary aggregate production
• Research into the use of plastic, domestic and other waste materials to manufacture aggregate substitutes; and into alternative materials such as timber.
• A directory of sources of recycled aggregates and technical information on how secondary aggregates can be used
• Public awareness/education campaigns to highlight environmental costs of extraction and to reduce demand for primary aggregates
• Risk assessment for those who may wish to use alternative or recycled aggregates
• The import of foreign stone will have an impact on the UK market. This should be researched and consideration given to the amount used per contract.
• An experienced and qualified staff resource to help build a centre of excellence

14. More general comments were as follows:

• It is important that existing work is not duplicated; research should be carefully targeted
• Some recognition should be given to the role of the EU in setting specifications, as well as the Environment Agency, Local Authority and other primary legislators
• The existing programmes may lack the expertise to do research that leads to minimisation.
• A funding category entitled "Supporting projects to achieve the most sustainable supply of aggregates" should replace " Minimising demand for primary aggregates" and include work on recycling specifications, market barriers etc.
• The paper makes no direct reference to secondary aggregates; it is not possible to determine if work will benefit the use of secondary materials. It should also be noted that secondary aggregates carry an environmental cost.

Section 4: Projects aimed at the promotion of environmentally friendly aggregate extraction and transport

15. The majority of respondents agreed with the outlined proposal but felt that environmental improvements to lorry transport should be the responsibility of the industry. Further clarity was required on who would enforce cleaner and quieter lorry transport. Support for using the DTLR Planning Research Programme was moderate as it was felt that support to be provided is already covered by their current remit. Additional Levy support in this area was queried.

General comments included:

• Support for the Freight Facilities Grant with suggestions as to how it might be better applied. This included suggestions that funding should be extended to research into minerals related transportation - this point is also relevant to the Clean Up Programme. In addition to the FFG, a 50% rebate could be given to producers who mostly use rail or water. It was however pointed out that increased rail facilities had led in some instances to quarries exceeding their boundaries.
• The need to address the state of the road network, the fact that larger operators might gain a large subsidised advantage, and that the rail system is already overloaded.
• Attention was drawn to the existing and forthcoming regulation. Quarry operators are obliged to adopt "best available technology" (BAT) by 2002 it would not be possible to improve upon the standards of technology demanded; also there are several EU Directives and planning guidance coming into force which the proposals of the fund seemed to be duplicating.
• "There needs to be clarification on how Defra, DTI and DTLR plan to work together to ensure that the Fund adds value and complements existing initiatives"
• Work to be done under the heading "reduction of the environmental impact of aggregates" - It is considered that "the most urgent regional project in need of funding is the development of environmental capacity assessments for each region, as these will be a vital tool in implementing MPG 6 which is currently being reviewed by DTLR."
• "Concern about the suggestion of a differential rate for "green quarries" could undermine the Levy's effectiveness in delivering more prudent use of natural resources, which is a central plank of the Government's national Sustainable Development Strategy."

16. Suggestions for other work under this heading that could be supported were as follows:

• Review -
• FFG limits to the implementation of the programme objectives such as funding facilities for planning conditions
• Planning guidance and mineral working sites
• Variable speed limiters and cameras
• Good practice -
• general guidance notes and accreditation;
• a guide for marine extraction;
• research into the mitigation of noise, dust, fumes and mud on highways associated with extraction/transportation.
• The effect of aggregates extraction on marine/ marine historic environment
• Operator responsibility - scope and funding
• "Alternative Materials"
• Reprocessing of "build up of stockpiles of lower grade/lower price aggregates into saleable higher quality materials"
• Recycling of roadstone from poor quality road construction
• Transport -
• Total cost of transporting aggregates
• Role of restored canals for transportation - to reduce reliance on lorries
• On and off site transfer facilities
• "We suggest that projects initiated under this section of the Fund are undertaken to find ways of reducing the amount of waste that quarrying generates, and the disruption and damage that is currently done by the transportation of aggregates. This needs to be at a strategic level rather than at a local one."

Section 5: Reducing the effect of aggregate extraction

17. A numerical majority of respondents felt Local Authorities or Mineral Planing Authorities, working in partnership with existing bodies and programmes should have a formal/lead role in the process as they have an in depth experience of local conditions. Where the option of an advisory panel is pursued, it could be part of the Regional Aggregates Working Party. RAWP could also act as consultant to Mineral Planning Authorities.

Specific comments made on Local Authority/Mineral Planning Authority role were that they should:

• "be consulted on applications and represented on advisory panels"
• Have "A key role in proposing, assessing and/ or delivering projects"
• " administer grants for reducing the current and historic effects of aggregate extraction on behalf of government."
• Have a "Supporting and enabling role to guide local industrial heritage projects associated with aggregate extraction"
• "operating under agency agreements with the Countryside Agency or English Nature, could manage grant aid and advice schemes to private landowners."
• "be involved in local projects as equal partners with the fund holding agency and any third party acting as prime mover in the project"

Respondents were asked to comment on funding issues within the proposal. Comments were as follows:

• "Appropriate funding should be made available to Local Authorities should additional expenditure arise form their involvement in working up and bringing forward local projects."
• "Local Authorities should be involved in discussions about the use of the funds but should not administer the fund themselves because this could easily lead to justification for granting permission to quarries in order to reap the benefit of the fund"
• "There should be an indication as to how this would be resourced, especially if Local Authorities are to be prevented from making applications directly"
• In National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, "management and consultative bodies which involve Local Authorities acting in partnership with Countryside Agency should be used in allocating the funds."
• "The simplest system for this approach would be to invite an annual invitation to submit bids for funding provided that the concerns about proper co-ordination and prioritisation are addressed."

18. On the five areas of work outlined to reduce local effects of aggregate extraction, most consultees were in agreement emphasising different areas of priority.

Comments were as follows:

• "The link with biodiversity action plans should be stronger"
• "Old Mineral Planning permission work should have higher priority than increasing biodiversity and conserving geological features";
• The "Range of proposed projects allowed is too narrow and needs to be widened to ensure that particular local needs are not neglected by default";
• "There should also be social and economic benefits. Recipients of local funds should be non-profit making organisations ";
• " It is however important that any funding provided for these projects should not cease as soon as finance from the fund expires.";
• "A high proportion of the Fund should be allocated for use on local projects...at least 50% of the Fund with a three mile radius of aggregates operation";
• The part which could be played by English Nature, English Heritage and the Countryside Agency in the administration of the Fund was acknowledged, but there was "concern regarding any lead role for these bodies as proposed. Their objectives are too focused and do not embrace the range of issues which constitute Sustainability."
• The inclusion of the historic environment in the current consultation paper was greatly welcomed.

19. Other work that respondents suggested could be supported under this heading was more work on biodiversity; preservation and restoration of historical plant equipment and artefacts as well as research into historical aggregate sites. Research into marine issues; funds for Local Authorities to repair local highways affected by aggregates traffic; and restoring orphan, abandoned and existing sites in local and urban areas. Training of mineral planning authority officers on regulations that allow them to withdraw permissions for sites without incurring compensation claims and on how to ensure that new permissions have adequate conditions attached to them to mitigate damage. There were also suggestions to set up a legal fund; environmental education and awareness schemes, and community based projects to provide social and economic benefits.

Section 6: Allocating funds to projects

20. Overall consultees agreed with the approach to funding. Where there was disagreement, the balance of support seemed to be towards projects minimising the use of primary aggregates which respondents should receive the bulk of the funding. Other comments were as follows:

• "Splitting the fund between disparate agencies runs the risk of losing the focus of the fund and control of the funding"
• "The requirement of some agencies for match funding would also be prohibitive to the success of the fund"
• It is "Difficult to see how sponsors will identify sufficient projects, get them underway, and spend their allocations at the beginning of the 2002/03 financial year, now only 3 or 4 months away"
• "Fund over and above the funding of national agencies to use their criteria"
• The "Scope for redistributing uncommitted funds between partners should be explored"
• "Reducing the demand for primary aggregates should have the highest allocation of 75%, promoting least environmentally damaging extraction and transport -15%"

21. Most agreed with the set out allocations but wanted to know the basis on which estimates had been made. They also felt there should be an element of flexibility to accommodate changing priorities. Again it was recommended that the initial focus be on "minimising demand for primary aggregates." Little if any money at all should be given to "promoting environmentally friendly extraction and transport". This was seen to be the responsibility of operators. Some were concerned that the amount for "Reducing the effect of local aggregate extraction" would be reduced in the second year of the scheme.

Comments:

• "The principle is acceptable but difficult to comment without details of likely projects"
• "Too little weight has been given to the role of the planning process and the reasonable record of the mineral industry in managing the environmental impact of aggregates extraction"
• "No, the fund should be used for the purpose for which it was created by allocating it to projects which will reduce aggregate extraction."
• "Guarantees are required that fund raised from extracting aggregates in an area are spent on restoring landscapes in the area"
• "Marine aggregates extraction should have an allocation of about £3 million and at least a pro rata rate share of the total funding"
• "Yes, but the sum of money available for reducing the effects of local aggregates extraction, when allocated, even on a restricted basis amongst the largest mineral extraction counties, represents a very small sum of money related to the scale of the problems to be tackled"
• "6.3 final bullet point 'looking to support cutting edge approaches' suggest a willingness to throw resources at hare-brained schemes with doubtful or uncertain objectives. Fund must only support schemes with clear and practical objectives"

22. Other factors to be considered in finalising allocations were as follows:

• An audit of research/funds against the policies set out in the consultation document.
• Priority should be given to areas subject to most serious impacts of aggregate extraction
• Biodiversity and geological conservation should not be seen as short term options; and overall an indication of what is proposed medium and long term.
• Defra should have discretion to move monies between allocations as needed
• Defra needs to clarify expectations of flexibility on match funding

23. There was broad agreement. on project criteria. Clarification was sought on what was meant by "additionality" and how exactly "match funding" would apply. Suggestions were made for other work that could be considered such as:

• Links to other works and projects,
• Local and community initiatives and partnerships;
• Support of applications for both capital and revenue expenditure.

Other comments were as follows:

• "All projects should also be subject to a sustainability criteria"
• "It may be useful to provide a clear definition of "near" (mitigating the effects of aggregate extraction in or near sites) so as to avoid confusion and minimise the number if inappropriate applications being submitted.
• "All projects should be judged with a single set of criteria"
• "Funding should not be limited to projects based in England."
• " There should be a requirement for providing that funds have been spent. The Fund should have the ability to provide 100% funds, otherwise where match funding is required by existing schemes then potentially many larger and beneficial projects will not take place."
• "The Fund should be allocated within the UK on the basis of aggregates output, not by population"
• "The Fund (in England) should be allocated and managed independently by Defra."
• "A welcome to the establishment of the Fund and the ring fencing of the greatest part of the resources to reducing the effect of local aggregate extraction"
• "Yes, but the balance of funding between the three objectives identified should be kept under review after 2003/4"
• The "Scope for redistributing uncommitted funds between partners should be explored".

Section 7: Monitoring, reviewing and reporting

24. The majority of respondents agreed with the monitoring, review and reporting arrangements. Most were keen that the process be simple and transparent. The proposed annual report should be based on clear objectives. The setting of targets against which measurements could be made was also suggested.

Conclusion

Many of the overall conclusions from this consultation exercise reinforce the main messages from the earlier Treasury run consultation. The overall summary from the Treasury run consultation was:

• "All of the comments received supported the idea of setting up a Sustainability Fund and the majority of responses suggested that the primary aim of the Fund should be to reduce the amount of primary aggregate extracted, overcome market barriers and promote increased use of alternative materials. A number of respondents felt that research into marine aggregate extraction could usefully be supported by the fund.
• A number of respondents indicated that the Fund should not be used to support activities, which are properly the responsibility of the quarrying industry. Research into more sustainable construction practices and promoting increased bio-diversity, were also highlighted as priorities for the fund.
• Some respondents also thought that the Fund could ensure that information on best practice within the construction and aggregate extraction industry was made available through published journals and the internet. A large number of respondents also felt that the effectiveness of the Fund could be measured against defined criteria.
• A number of respondents suggested that providing support for environmentally friendly quarrying practices and local community projects were of a lower priority as these activities could be seen as the proper responsibility of the quarry operators."

To the extent that is consultation has highlighted different issues there were three in particular.

• The role of local authorities
• The balance between funding priorities
• The role of industry

The role of local authorities and the use of existing programmes

• There was some opposition to using existing programmes to disburse funds. It was felt schemes would be duplicated, and there would be no "additionality", and that distributing bodies could lead to an increase in administrative costs. Existing programmes are believed to lack experience on matters of aggregates extraction, and would be biased towards their own area of interest.
• Some local authorities saw our proposed approach of using existing programmes to disburse funds as not adequately reflecting the role of local government and the need for local accountability. It was felt that Local Authorities as Mineral Planning authorities should have a formal lead role in the process.

The balance between funding priorities

• The balance of support in responses was for more the bulk of the allocation to go to projects "reducing the local effects of aggregates extraction". The view generally held was that after 2003/04, changes should be made to funding priorities, at which time funding should be dedicated for at least three years. It was also felt that Defra should have discretion to move monies between allocations as needed between programmes.
• Respondents also wanted consideration to be given to setting aside a proportion of the fund for small scale projects, and for more work to be done on marine issues.

The role of industry

• Industry are not convinced by our approach. They are also concerned about not having a role in the implementation of the fund. There was however, significant support for the funding of an Aggregates Advisory Service.
• It was felt that insufficient consideration had been given to the environmental cost of secondary aggregates and the impact foreign stone would have on the UK market as a result of the levy.
• There is also concern that there are several EU Directives and planning guidance coming into force, which the proposals of the fund seem to be duplicating.

Annex A:
LIST OF RESPONDENTS

Table 1 Responses by Sector

																																	Number of respondents																																		Percentage
Local Authorities																																	59																																		44.4
Waste management companies																																	2																																		1.5
Environmental bodies																																	22																																		16.5
Countryside and rural bodies																																	11																																		8.3
Minerals Trade Associations and operators																																	12																																		9
Individuals																																	4																																		3
Other Interested parties																																	23																																		17.3
Total																																	133																																		100

Denison Till Solicitors
London Borough of Havering
Exmoor National Park
Restormel Borough Council
Chelmsford Borough Council
North Shropshire District Council
The Mendip Society
Patersons of Greenoakhill
Oxfordshire County Council
Leeds City Council
Buckinghamshire County Council
Ballast Phoenix Ltd
Rutland Railway Museum
County Durham Environmental Trust (CDET)
Suffolk County Council
Staffordshire County Council
Wyvern Waste Services
Hereford Council
Nether Kellet Parish Council
Cannock Chase Council
Lambeth Borough Council
Quarternary Research Association
The Royal Town Planning Institute
Chorley Borough Council
The National Forest
Derbyshire County Council
Barnsley Met. Borough Council
Tees Forest
Scarborough Borough Council
Somerset Minerals Forum
Leicestershire County Council
Hart District Council
GO-North East
The Ramblers Association
Wildlife and Countryside Link
British Waterways
Asham & East Mendip Group
RSPB
Mendip Quarries Advisory Group
South Gloucestershire Council
East Sussex County Council
Association Of Preservation Trusts
Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council
Somerset County Council
WRAP
Defra
Essex County Council
Slough Borough Council
Chichester District Council
Association of AONB
Devon County Council
Browstow Borough Council
Norfolk County Council
Gateshead Council
East Cambridgeshire District Council
Yorkshire Dales NPA
Todmorden Moor Restoration Trust
Lewes District Council
SCOPAC
St Edmundsbury Borough Council
English Heritage
Cotswold Water Park Joint Committee
Quarry Products Association
Forest of Marston Vale
Shropshire County Council
Watford Council
Hampshire County Council
IMERYs Minerals
Biffa Waste Services
Humber Barges Ltd.
Surrey County County
UKRIGS Executive
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)
West Midlands Reg. Aggregates Working Party
North Norfolk District Council
Lancashire County Council
Cambridgeshire County Council
LARAC
LB Redbridge
South Bucks District Council
North Somerset Council
LB of Hounslow
National Env. Research Council
Woodland Trusts
Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management
Trent Valley Geoarchaeology
Nottinghamshire County Council
Dorset County Council
Institute of Field Archaeologists
Tarmac
National Stone Centre
Northumberland County Council
Road Haulage Association
ENTRUST
Council for British Archeology
Environmental Advisory Service
Commercial Boat Operators Association
Geological Society
Thames Water
Countryside Agency
CPRE
British Aggregates Association
English Nature
Lafarge Aggregates
Runnymede Borough Council
Bristol City Council
Centre for Waste & Recycling, BRE
Environmental Services Association
Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE)
Gloucestershire County Council
Rolandon Water & Sea Freight Advisory Services
Planning Officers Society
Hertfordshire County Council
Environment Agency
Transport and General Workers Union
North Yorkshire County Council
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
Earth Science Teachers' Association (ESTA)
Government Office North West
Royal Institute of Chartered Architects (RICS)
Somerset Wildlife Trust
Ghyll Scour Quarry Liason Committee
Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers
T. Ward Shipping Ltd.
Derbyshire Environmental Trust
National Association of Mining Historical Organisation (NAMHO)
Wood, Hall & Heward Ltd.
Seascale & Whicham County Council

---

Published 11 April 2002

---

Aggregates Consultation Paper

---

Environmental Protection Consultation Index

---

Waste and Recycling Index

---

Environmental Protection Index

---

Defra Home Page