ANNEX. RSPB response to the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation.
Q2. Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?
In response to the first part of Q2 overall, we do agree with the draft Vision. In particular, we support paragraph 4 of the draft Vision ('All mineral workings will contribute towards a greener Nottinghamshire...') and its emphasis on landscape-scale biodiversity delivery and the re-connection of ecological networks.
Landscape-scale biodiversity delivery and the re-connection of ecological networks are essential components in the fight to halt and reverse the significant and ongoing declines in biodiversity in Nottinghamshire, the UK and globally. The importance of this issue is recognised and promoted in key government publications such as the Natural Environment White Paper, the Biodiversity 2020 strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework and the new 25 Year Plan for the Environment. Mineral development has a vital role to play in delivering these aspirations, as mineral site restoration provides a unique opportunity to create large areas of priority habitat in what would otherwise, in many cases, be intensively farmed landscapes.
For more evidence and justification to underpin this approach please refer to the two "Bigger and Better" documents, published by an RSPB-led partnership in June 2015 and March 20161. The first considers the whole Trent and Tame Valley from Warwickshire to the Humber; the second specifically addresses the Newark to South Clifton area of the Nottinghamshire Trent, including the Langford Lowfields and Besthorpe Nature Reserves. Together they highlight the benefits of restoration of mineral sites for biodiversity and communities, and give examples and more detail on the rationale.
In response to the second part of Q2, we recommend that the draft Vision should explicitly address climate change, including the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Climate change is the most important challenge that we face in the world today and the need to mitigate and adapt to its impacts is recognised in the global 'Paris Agreement'. Furthermore, just as the UK is legally obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we also have no choice but to be prepared to adapt to the unavoidable consequences of climate change already 'locked in' over the next several decades, from past and current emissions levels. We recommend that, to address this issue, an additional sentence should be added to paragraph four of the draft Vision:
* Measures will be taken to mitigate and adapt to climate change, for example, by minimising the emission of greenhouse gas emissions in the extraction and transportation of minerals.
In addition, in the context of the location of mineral development, consideration should be given to locations that have the greatest potential to deliver strategic restoration benefits, such as flood alleviation, landscape-scale biodiversity delivery and the re-connection of ecological networks. For example, in the Grensmaas project, in the Netherlands, the extraction of 54 million tonnes of sand and gravel along a 43km stretch of the Meus / Maas River, is being strategically planned to deliver a major flood alleviation scheme, which will reduce the risk of flooding to thousands of homes, as well as creating a 1,000ha nature reserve. The same approach could potentially be applied, albeit at a smaller scale, to minerals development along the River Trent and its tributaries. To address this issue, we recommend that the following sentence is added at the end of paragraph two of the draft Vision ('Within geological constraints...'):
* Consideration will also be given to locations that have the greatest potential to deliver strategic restoration benefits.







1 https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/conservation/landscape-scale-conservation/sites/trent-and-tame-river-valleys

Q3. Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?
In response to the first part of Q3, overall, we agree that the strategic issues are appropriate. In particular, we support Strategic Issue 4 (Biodiversity led restoration of worked out quarries). This is because, as outlined in response to Q2, mineral development provides a unique opportunity to contribute to landscape-scale biodiversity delivery and the re-connection of ecological networks.
This opportunity will only be realised if biodiversity is a primary consideration in mineral site restoration. However, if the biodiversity value of these restored sites is to be maintained, or even further enhanced, into the future, then consideration also needs to be given to the long-term funding that will be required to support the long-term management of these sites. As such we recommend that the supporting text for Strategic Issue 4 is amended as follows:
* Ensuring that all worked out quarries are restored to the highest standard and at the earliest opportunity through a biodiversity led approach and that the restoration proposals - and funding for long-term aftercare - are addressed at an early stage of the application process.
In response to the second part of Q3, we recommend that Strategic Issue 3, which currently focuses on minimising adverse impacts on communities, should be broadened such that it seeks to minimise all adverse impacts of mineral development. This should include adverse impacts on environmental and heritage features such as biodiversity, landscape and archaeology, in addition to adverse impacts on communities.
Minimising adverse environmental impacts is a crucial element of any planning strategy that is not currently addressed under any of the Strategic Issues in this Minerals Local Plan. Addressing this wider range of issues would provide a more direct link between the strategic objectives and the range of development management policy areas that are covered in relation to Q26. As such, we recommend that the heading for Strategic Issue 3 is changed to:
* 3. Minimise adverse impacts.
Whilst we agree that it is appropriate to use the word 'minimise' at this strategic level, when this strategic issue / objective is worked up in more detail, at a policy level, in future iterations of the Minerals Local Plan, it should promote the 'mitigation hierarchy' (as set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)). Under the mitigation hierarchy, priority should be given to avoiding adverse effects. Mitigating (or minimising) these effects should only come into play when adverse effects cannot be avoided.
In addition, for the reasons outlined in response to Q1, mitigating - and adapting to - climate change should also be explicitly identified as a strategic issue, either as part of Strategic Issue 1 or as a stand- along strategic issue.
Q6. Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new, greenfield quarries?
Yes. In principle, we agree with the principle of doing so as, overall, this is likely to minimise adverse effects on the wider environment and on communities. There should also be benefits to biodiversity because larger blocks of habitat can be delivered in this way, that hectare for hectare are easier and cheaper to manage and less susceptible to the impacts of climate change and other external influences.
However, if it is identified that an extension to an existing quarry is likely to have adverse effects on key features, particularly in relation to nature conservation designations and priority habitats, then consideration should be given to prioritising a new, greenfield quarry instead. It is also worth noting that the biodiversity-led restoration of new, greenfield sites has the potential to provide important 'stepping stones' for wildlife between existing areas of priority habitat, thereby helping to establish a more coherent ecological network.
Ideally, the allocation of extensions to existing quarries should provide an opportunity to review and, if appropriate, amend the overall restoration plan to ensure the best possible biodiversity-led restoration.

Q8. 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?
Minimising the distance that minerals are transported is an important consideration, not least because this will help to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, as well as reducing impacts such as noise and pollution.
Q9. Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?
Whilst we support the principle of maintaining a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries in order to minimise the distance minerals are transported to markets, as outlined in response to Q8, we believe that there may be circumstances in which it would be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others. In particular, as indicated in response to Q1, consideration should be given to locating mineral development where it has the greatest potential to deliver strategic restoration benefits. The relative merits of minimising transportation distances and delivering strategic restoration benefits should be assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal.
Q10. Is it economical to transport mineral by river barge and, if so, should proposed quarries with the potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge be prioritised over other proposals?
Although we are not in a position to comment on the economics of transporting mineral by river barge, we support this approach, in principle, on the basis that it should help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimise other adverse impacts such as noise and pollution. However, consideration should be given to the potential adverse effects of this approach. For example, the installation of barge infrastructure during the operational phase of a mineral development could potentially limit longer-term, post-restoration objectives, such as flood alleviation and re-connecting the river with its floodplain.
Q24. Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
Yes. Among other issues, hydrocarbon extraction (especially unconventional shale-gas extraction, or "fracking") poses risks for climate change, water quality and supplies, and nature. The impacts of fracking on the UK environment are poorly understood given the novelty of the industry here, but potentially significant, and yet the Government is determined to put its weight and support behind it. We are concerned that developing unconventional gas resources including shale gas is incompatible with the UK's legal commitments on climate change. Furthermore, we are concerned that the current environmental regulatory framework does not provide adequate protection for the environment, especially as regulators are under pressure to speed up permitting processes and shale-gas extraction is a very new and largely untried process in a UK context.
We recognise the limited power that Nottinghamshire County Council has to resist further hydrocarbon developments (including shale-gas extraction) in the face of strong Government support for an expanded industry. However, a criteria-based policy governing proposals for new hydrocarbon development should specifically address:
* Protection of nature conservation assets (statutory and non-statutory sites, habitats of principal importance, and protected species) at the surface, including from potential indirect effects of pollution, noise, dust, light and water use (surface and sub-surface water resources);
* Minimising greenhouse gas emissions at site, in construction and operation including stray methane emissions from the borehole and from associated construction and operational traffic;
* Maximising sustainable water use, to minimise the need for further abstraction, or importing of new water resources from outside the area. The MLP should note in particular that the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer is closed to new abstractions at present, and large parts of Nottinghamshire are classed as being in "serious" or "moderate" water stress already. If technically feasible and subject to other environmental safeguards the MLP policy should push applicants to develop closed-loop water supply systems at site level.

Q25. Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?
Yes, we agree with the proposed development management policy areas, in particular:
* Protecting local amenity
* Water resources and flood risk
* Agricultural land and soil quality
* Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity
* Landscape character
* Public access
* Cumulative impact
* Airfield safeguarding
* Planning obligations
* Restoration, afteruse and aftercare
With regards to agricultural land and soil quality, the main focus should be on conserving soil quality rather than maintaining the agricultural use of the land, per se. This would facilitate the biodiversity-led restoration approach which is being promoted in the draft Plan. For example, it would allow the creation of priority wetland habitats rather than a presumption in favour of restoration to agriculture. The creation of wetland priority habitats, in particular, has the potential to conserve soil quality more effectively than an intensive agricultural after-use, particularly on peat-based soils, as there would be less risk of soil erosion. The climate mitigation benefits may also be more significant (i.e. through carbon sequestration).
With regards to airfield safeguarding, we recognise the need to minimise the area of open water and short grass adjacent to open water in these areas. However, biodiversity-led restoration should still be a priority in these areas, focussing on priority habitats that have a lower risk of bird strike compared to large areas of open water.
Any policy on the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity should reflect the hierarchy of nature conservation designations and the mitigation hierarchy, as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Any such policy should make it clear that the presumption in favour of (sustainable) development does not apply to proposed development in international and national nature conservation designations, as outlined in the NPPF, paragraph 14.
As indicated in response to Q2, any policy on restoration, afteruse and aftercare should address:
* biodiversity-led restoration;
* landscape-scale biodiversity deliver;
* re-connecting ecological networks;
* funding for the long-term aftercare and management of restored mineral sites.
In relation to mineral extraction in the Trent Valley, the policy on restoration, afteruse and aftercare should recognise the contribution that mineral restoration can make to enhancing the ecological network of the Trent Valley as a whole, not just limited to the Nottinghamshire section of the Trent Valley. It should also promote the coordinated development and restoration of clusters of mineral sites to ensure that they collectively deliver the best possible biodiversity outcomes, for example through the production of 'masterplans' for the restoration of these clusters. The policy should also take account of proposals and recommendations outlined in relevant documents and strategies such as the Trent Valley Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping, relevant National Character Areas, Living Landscapes and Futurescapes.
In response to the second part of Q25 (i.e. Are there any others that should be covered?), we believe that mitigating and adapting to climate change should be explicitly as a development management policy area, for the reasons outlined in response to Q2.