Scoping Document

8. Local Policies

8.1This chapter of the Plan will provide policies that we consider are necessary and justified to include to address local issues. This is in accordance with Policies PM2 and PM6 of the NPPF.

8.2As local policies should not duplicate, substantively restate or be inconsistent with national decision – making policies, we have assessed the current adopted Plans policies against the national decision – making policies.

8.3This assessment is summarised in appendix 1 and flagged the following potential topics the local policies will need to cover:

• Agricultural land and soils
• Protecting landscape character
• Sherwood Forest ppSPA
• South Muskham archaeological reserve
• Highway safety and routeing
• Restoration, after-use and aftercare
• Incidental mineral extraction
• Irrigation lagoons
• Borrow Pits
• Associated industrial development
• Mineral exploration

8.4Each topic is taken in turn below and discusses what the local policy may cover, no draft policies are proposed at this point. Since the issue of agricultural land and soils is around their potential use during restoration, this is discussed under restoration, after-use and aftercare.

Protecting landscape character

8.5As outlined in appendix 1, Policy N4 of the NPPF only addresses impacts on protected landscapes. It therefore does not address local character landscapes nor the distinctiveness of local landscapes. We therefore consider that it is necessary and justified to have a local policy in the new Plan.

8.6We would propose that the local policy is like the current adopted plan Policy DM5:

Sherwood Forest ppSPA

8.7Around Sherwood Forest, there is a possible potential Special Protection Area (ppSPA) that is under consideration and could become a candidate site. Until it is designated, a risk - based approach should be followed as per Natural England advice note issued to Local Planning Authorities in November 2025. This means that any applications should be assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Birds directive.

8.8As the site is not yet designated, national decision – making policy N6 does not offer any protection to the ppSPA. We therefore consider it necessary to include and propose a local policy which sets out this risked based approach to the ppSPA so that any mineral development near the area is assessed appropriately.

8.9The ppSPA will also be identified within the policies map and considered as a constraint when assessing sites for allocation.

South Muskham and Holbeck/ Creswell archaeological resource areas

8.10Clause 6 of Policy DM6 of the minerals local plan currently states that no development shall take place within the archaeological resource area at South Muskham. This local resource is protected in the Plan as it contains one of the densest areas of known archaeological remains in the Trent Valley. Whilst of regional and local archaeological importance, the resource and its extent is not fully understood. As the potential resource is unknown, the resource in the area is not currently designated. To protect the potential resource, the Plan took a presumption against mineral extraction in this area.

8.11We propose to continue this approach and, as this would not be covered by national decision – making policies, we believe it is justified and necessary to have a local policy in place.

8.12We are also aware that a similar area of archaeological importance, which its extent is currently unknown and so not designated, is present around Holbeck, connected the wider heritage assets of Creswell. We are considering whether it is also appropriate to also protect this area from future mineral extraction in a similar way to South Muskham by including a local policy which identifies an area where a presumption against mineral extraction will be taken. We would be interested to hear your views on this.

8.13The policies map for the Plan will show the locations of the archaeological resource and these will be considered as a constraint within the site selection for allocated sites.

Highway safety and routeing

8.14As noted in Appendix 1: Assessment of adopted mineral policies against the NPPF, whilst national decision – making policy TR6: Assessing transport impacts addresses the main issues covered in Policy DM9, certain aspects relating to mineral development are not addressed.

8.15For example, there is no reference to ensuring adequate vehicle routeing schemes are put in place to minimise impacts on local communities nor ensuring measures preventing mud on the highway.

8.16We therefore propose there is a local policy which addresses these issues and believe this is necessary and justified.

Restoration, after – use and aftercare

8.17Clause 1.c. of national decision – making policy M4: Considering the impacts of mineral development requires proposals to provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards.

8.18Whilst this covers the main thrust of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan policy DM12 and Nottingham LPP2 DPD Policy MI2, it does not cover the nuances which address:

• Ensuring restoration is in keeping with the local area and delivers local objectives for habitats, biodiversity, landscape, historic environment or community use
• Ensure restoration plans that include:
  • A concept plan, with detail to show it feasible
  • Details on contouring, landscaping, phasing and any other information
• What restoration plans will need to demonstrate if the scheme relies upon importing waste
• Aftercare of at least 5 years or longer if necessary
• How after – use of sites should ensure it contributes to local biodiversity objectives and that it has regard to the surrounding local area, providing benefits to the local and wider community

8.19As this is not detailed in national decision – making policy, we therefore consider it is necessary and justified to have a local policy which continues to set out the above requirements as Policy DM12 does.

8.20The policy though will be updated to reflect that restoration should consider the priorities and opportunities as identified by the LNRS.

8.21It is also proposed that the policy includes reference to agricultural land and soils, as unlike other development, minerals are temporary and phased developments. This offers the opportunity to protect agricultural land and soils through phasing extraction to encourage longer use of productive agricultural land but also the opportunity to restore and preserve soils and agricultural land through restoration.

Incidental mineral extraction

8.22As noted in Appendix 1: Assessment of adopted mineral policies against the NPPF, the NPPF does not provide a policy framework for determining applications for incidental mineral extraction and so we consider a local policy is necessary. We propose the policy will be similar to Policy DM13 in the adopted Plan.

Irrigation lagoons

8.23As noted in Appendix 1: Assessment of adopted mineral policies against the NPPF, the NPPF does not provide a policy framework for determining applications for irrigation lagoons and so we consider a local policy is necessary. We propose the policy will be similar to Policy DM14 in the adopted Plan.

Borrow pits

8.24As noted in Appendix 1: Assessment of adopted mineral policies against the NPPF, the NPPF does not provide a policy framework for determining applications for borrow pits and so we consider a local policy is necessary. We propose the policy will be similar to Policy DM15 in the adopted Plan.

Associated industrial development

8.25As noted in Appendix 1: Assessment of adopted mineral policies against the NPPF, the NPPF does not provide a policy framework for determining applications for associated industrial development and so we consider a local policy is necessary. We propose the policy will be similar to Policy DM16 in the adopted Plan.

Mineral exploration

8.26As noted in Appendix 1: Assessment of adopted mineral policies against the NPPF, the NPPF does not provide a policy framework for determining applications for mineral exploration and so we consider a local policy is necessary. We propose the policy will be similar to Policy DM17 in the adopted Plan.

Local information requirements

8.27Policy DM2: Information requirements of the NPPF is clear that local authorities can only request additional information to be submitted to support an application, other than that listed in annex c, if there is a policy in the development plan which requires specific further assessment.

8.28To consider whether there are any mineral specific assessment and reports we require to determine applications beyond what is listed in the NPPF, we have compared annex c with the current Nottinghamshire County Council local validation list. This has identified the following reports and assessments which are currently additionally requested:

• Rapid Health Impact Assessment Matrix
• Hydrogeological or hydrological assessment
• Tree/ arboriculture survey
• Biodiversity and geodiversity assessment, including Ecological Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulation assessment where necessary
• Statement of community involvement
• Rights of way statement
• Landscape and Visual impact assessment
• Agricultural land classification statement

8.29We consider that such information is still required to help assess and determine mineral applications and so we propose that a local policy on information requirements will be included within this chapter of the new Plan.

8.30As per clause 2 of Policy DM2 of the NPPF, the requirement for the assessments will be proportionate to the scale of the development and its potential impact.

8.31We will also highlight any key additional information requirements for allocation sites within the site – specific policy.