I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.

The County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site (MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis) is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term. Why would the County Council pick a site that by it's own investigations is one of the least attractive options? Why carry out the Sustainability assessment if you are only going to ignore its findings?

The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of "maintaining a geographical spread" and therefore over-riding the adverse impact on sustainability. However, the Council has stated, "there is no published data related to geographical spread". Again the justification for the inclusion of this site seems to be at odds to the Councils own findings. Why is the Council repeatedly ignoring its own advice? It's seems that there are factions within the Council that are 'at war' with each other? Surely the function of the Council is for the betterment of the electorate and the county at large, not a cauldron of in-fighting?

There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big therefore cannot be justified. This seems completely non-nonsensical to me. It is like saying that a whole cake is too big to eat! You can just take a slice of the cake, you do not need to eat it all at once. The sites at Shelford or Coddington could be started small and then expanded, if necessary. Surely there is no such thing as too big if the sites have not yet begun?

The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport. From the work done by the Council on the previous Draft Minerals Plan, the only site highlighted as a potential for resource removal by barge was Shelford. If there is a desire, on the very sensible grounds of sustainable transport, to have the resources removed by barge, surely Shelford must be included in the proposal. Yet again we see the Council ignoring its own advice!

The site would impact on two SSSls (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWSs (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether. With an objective of the council to be sustainable and ecologically responsible it seems reckless that they are planning on carving up the countryside and destroying these nationally designated important and beautiful sites.

Public Health England RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site. Surely it is also a responsibility of the Council to take note of the advice of these important national bodies. Choosing to ignore the advice of these organisations makes the Council look like it does not care about the advice of others.

The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated 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. Once again, the Council seems to be ignoring not only its own advice but the various national frameworks under which it is bound. It would appear that the Council has made a unilateral, unsound decision and is ignoring its legal obligations.

There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people. There will be high levels of dust and noise adjacent to a highly populated area, including a local retirement village full of residents with possible respiratory problems, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses and other wildlife. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.