I wish to register my strongest objection to MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis.
Environmental damage - The Mill Hill site was evaluated by the County Councils 'Sustainability Assessment' as the 3rd most damaging of all those proposed in the county. It was also declared there would be a very negative effect on the Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which runs very close to the edge of the proposed site - in fact less than 100m away and would also drastically affect Holme Pit another SSSI.
I also understand that Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have also registered their objection to this proposed sites on the grounds that this is an area of rare wildlife that needs to be protected including 24 red and 22 amber listed species.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods are listed as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF. The sand and gravel works would do enormous damage to this very treasured area which would not be restored and established for up to 25 years.
The effect on the environment as a whole and on the local villages and the population living in the vicinity would be enormous. The noise and dust from the site operations and the heavy lorry transport to and from the site on a continuous basis for 11 hours per day would seriously affect the quality of life for all those living in the area. And of course there is the loss of leisure area which is currently used by so many of the locals and not least visitors to the area for leisure activities such as walking, fishing, horse riding and bird watching.
The overall effect of the workings on the area from so many different stand points would be extremely negative and cannot and should not be ignored. The effect on house prices is of serious concern as is the loss of agricultural land and the increased risk of flooding to the area which is already designated as a flood risk area.
And finally, the Council has failed to adhere to its own policy aim which is to 'prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge - which of course with the Shelford site, which would allow for at least 40% to be transported in this way avoiding an enormous amount of extra air pollution and congestion caused by heavy road transport. So, one has to wonder as to why the shelford site has been removed from consideration?