The Society and its predecessors, the Burton Joyce Preservation Society and the Burton Joyce Residents' Association, have always resisted mineral extraction plans proposed in this century which would have seriously damaged this area. These include the Application to dig up the Trent bank in our area and further downstream on this side ("The Gunthorpe Allocation") under the 2005 Minerals Plan; and on the immediately adjacent riverbank, in Shelford Parish, we have explicitly opposed proposals to include that territory in the now-abandoned draft for the new Plan. This submission is concerned only with aspects of the new Minerals Plan (2016-36) that will affect Burton Joyce.

All references are to page, paragraph and question numbers in the Consultation Document.

Introduction
We especially welcome and endorse the reference on p.3 to the important fact that "potential environmental impacts of extraction can limit where extraction is feasible" and that economic advantages must be measured "against the social and environmental disruption and harm that extraction can cause." We would add that while the economic benefits are necessarily of limited duration, as are some aspects of the damage to local communities, other sorts of damage would be permanent.

Question 1.Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?
Might not the question of Biodiversity be enlarged? We note the assertion that "as the County is quite poor in biodiversity, sand and gravel reclamation schemes have had a very significant role in redressing the balance." Since this is in the past tense, the sentence appears to recognise that no further re-balancing is required; nor is it appropriate. The Trent Valley is a recognised wildlife corridor. This is not only for migrating waterfowl, for which feeding and breeding grounds in the form of old quarry workings are more than adequate, but other species that would be put at risk by any increase in wetland. The value of restoration schemes varies greatly, and while nature reserves such as Attenborough and parks as at Colwick are a public amenity, they have been achieved over a very long time, largely at the expense of the public, rather than of those who took the gains from the quarrying process, and basic so-called "restoration to wetland" amounts to little more than ever more extensive holes full of water. If greater areas of wetland were once desirable, that need has already been met more than adequately, at least in the areas likely to be subject to possible applications for further digging. Detailed research on the river bank has shown that in this area there is great variety of important species, flora and fauna, on both banks of the Trent, which would be irreplaceably lost if gravel extraction were allowed.

Question 2.Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?
We agree with the draft vision, in particular the second and third points from the National Planning Policy Framework: "A social role - to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities" and "An environmental role - contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural built and historic environment, including improving biodiversity, prudent use of natural resources and adapting to climate change."
Burton Joyce is already such a community, but the loss of amenity that would result from the destruction of either bank of the Trent would be a catastrophe: the pollution by noise and dust from gravel workings and the congestion, air pollution, and noise caused by heavy traffic carrying away gravel would render parts of the village virtually uninhabitable. Serious flooding is already a threat which could render much of the area literally uninhabitable, and gravel digging on either bank would greatly increase that threat, especially in the light of the recently published analysis of the likelihood of more frequent severe weather conditions (Met Office Report 24th July 2017).
In relation to biodiversity and site restoration issues, see answer to Q1 above.
In relation to Alternative Aggregates, see answer to Q4 and Q14 below.
Transport of sand and gravel after extraction is an issue because of the low value of the material relative to its weight, resulting in the cost of transport accounting for a high proportion of its price at the site of use. However, if for this reason extraction sites are closer to inhabited areas to minimise mileage, there is very much greater cost, in terms of destruction of quality of life, detriment to health, increased probability of destructive flooding, and overloading of the road network on already-overstressed routes. Although those costs would not fall on those profiting from the sale of the minerals, it is the task of the Planning process as a whole to give those factors due weight.
In relation to barging of materials, see answer to Q10.

Question 3. Are the above Strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?
The relevant issues for Burton Joyce are paragraphs 3 and 4 concerning impact on communities and restoration of sites. While all the issues are appropriate where extraction is carried out, the only appropriate safeguards for this area would be to prevent extraction altogether.

Question 4. Do you think he average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire?
No. Firstly, the graph (figure 1) itself shows overall the amount of Recycled and Secondary materials effectively steady, even at a time of a fall, by over 50%, in the demand for newly-extracted fresh material. This would suggest that there is potential for the Recycled and Secondary aggregates to increase when there is need for overall increase in consumption of aggregates, and this would consequently reduce the eventual demand for fresh material. Logically the main source of this Recycled material would automatically grow with revived demand, since an increase in construction activity is necessarily accompanied by an increase in demolition and waste which can then become aggregate. This is especially so in the City of Nottingham, where there are very large areas of derelict land fit for redevelopment, and therefore this consideration is especially relevant to requirements for aggregates in or near the city. Similar considerations apply to the potential for new construction at the HS2 Hub at Toton, which now seems a certainty, but with the additional factor that this development will have, by definition, excellent rail connections, making transport of minerals from outside Nottinghamshire a more attractive proposition.
A ten-year base for estimates covers of course approximately half the period that this Minerals Plan will cover. Modern architectural practices place greater emphasis on ecological sensitivity; Nottingham University is a leading research and advocacy base for this. This involves reduced use of concrete, since the pollution and environmental degradation caused by its production are undesirable. Before 2036 it is likely that government regulations and local planning policies will reinforce that trend. We note with interest the finding (p.17) that the effect on demand of recession in 2008-9 shows up in the consumption figures only in 2012. It might be reasonable to suppose that the Brexit-induced economic downturn has not yet shown in such figures, but will. In the longer term which we are necessarily contemplating, it seems likely that improved technology will make Recycled and Secondary sources more plentiful. Tax incentives, as mentioned in the Consultation document (p.24) could further increase the proportion of aggregates available from these sources, and, while this is a matter of political will, it would be a move welcomed by the public and it may well be reasonable to include that probability in demand estimates.

Question 5. Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate, or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?
Different methodologies appear more appropriate. The arguments in answer to Q4 apply almost entirely to gravel, and to a lesser degree to sand, but very much less to other materials.

Question 6. Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?
In most cases yes, but the individual circumstances of each site will vary. The essential question is which choice will create the least risk of environmental destruction, flood risk, transport problems, destruction of natural habitat and damage to people's quiet enjoyment of their own homes. In most cases this is likely to be an extension of an existing site but there will be exceptions.

Question 7. Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?
Probably yes, but always subject to the criteria set out in answer to Q6. Attention should be given also to the long-term post-extraction future of sites, which is very different for the different minerals. For example, disused quarries for limestone or building stone may become more useful than previously, and even used for housing. However, gravel and sand extraction, in river valleys, usually destroys good agricultural land, close to inhabited areas, which has important amenity value and/or potential for development; all this is permanently lost if the site becomes a big hole full of water.

Question 8. How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the county (i.e. Idle Valley, near Newark and near Nottingham) to minimise the distance minerals are transported to markets?
Not important. As stated in the answer to Q2, extraction sites close to built-up areas only have lower costs because the extracting and construction companies do not pay the extra costs imposed on the inhabitants and on public authorities by that extraction. Such costs are automatically greater in a more densely populated area, particularly near the city of Nottingham. For many such sites the imposition of a quarry may effectively destroy a community.

Question 9. Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?
Yes. Priority should be given to areas of low population, unencumbered traffic routes and places where the existing land use is of low value.

Question 10. Is it economical to transport minerals by barge and if so should proposed quarries with the potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge be prioritised over other proposals?
Not as a rule: only in appropriate specific cases. We note that references in the consultation document are to barge transport over long distance, to and/or from existing infrastructure, none of which applies to the area near Nottingham. The economic calculations are beyond our capacity to estimate. However, we note that in now-superseded attempts to add a local site to the earlier draft of this Minerals Plan included the suggestion that a small proportion of the output could be carried by barge a short distance from an as-yet non-existent wharf. Such a suggestion appears unrealistic, and a misleading attempt to suggest that the impact on road systems could be moderated. The work to construct and operate a wharf could alone threaten damage to the existing bank and raise flood risks on both sides of the Trent, and inevitable spillages would also obstruct water flow and further increase risk of flooding. Given the very short barge journey proposed, most of the traffic problems caused by transporting the gravel would only be literally pushed a few miles down the road, if the wharf were actually used. If used, it would be a source of noise, dust and air pollution to the neighbouring homes, and if (as seems probable) it added expense to the transport system, it would not be used, and therefore not reduce a large extra burden on the road system.

Questions 11-13. As the Burton Joyce Village Society, we do not claim to have any useful contribution to make relating to sandstone and crushed rock provision.

Question 14. Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered in the Minerals Local Plan review.
As well as points raised in answer to Q4, two issues are relevant. 1: there is potential for much of the waste or sub-standard material from working for minerals other than gravel to substitute for gravel. This presumably comes under the heading of Secondary sources and will be taken into account in the next stage of the Plan. Such sources would be not large but have the advantages of being within an existing distribution system and located in areas where gravel is not available. 2. We are unaware whether or to what extent there has been investigation of the potential for material from colliery spoil heaps as aggregate. If the physical and chemical properties of such material are suitable, it has both those advantages, as well as of course being extremely plentiful in this County, and its removal would in most cases improve the value of the site.

Question 15-24. Again, the Society claims no right to speak on these issues. References to some of these materials as potential Secondary aggregates has been made already under Q.14.1

Question 25. Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?
We enthusiastically endorse the policies here set out. Even those few with no direct relevance to Burton Joyce (e.g. airfield safeguarding) are clearly important considerations where they arise. The fundamental purpose of Planning procedures should be to maintain the priority of these principles where they may conflict with short-term commercial gains.

Question 26. Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals local Plan review?
The issue scarcely arises in this part of the Trent Valley since the continuing agricultural use of land appears to be the alternative. The area is all unsuitable for other uses because of the high and growing threat of flooding, which would be aggravated by either mineral extraction or by building.