Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31216

Received: 20/09/2018

Respondent: Alex J Bowness

Representation Summary:

I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.

Full text:

Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
Dear Sir / Madam,
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 is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term. This site is in close proximity to large population and its tranquillity and recreational use to numerous individuals has not been recognised.
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 that "there is no published data related to geographical spread". The geographical spread ignores the extremely close sand and gravel workings towards the M1 Motorway due to the proximity of the County boundary. This area of Nottinghamshire (MP2s) is vital as a green lung before the infrastructure overload in the vicinity of East Midlands Parkways, HS2, M1 widening, logistics centres, hosing to the west of Clifton and airport.
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 cannot be justified. 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.
The site would impact on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest -Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five Local Wildlife Sites, one of which will be destroyed altogether. Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, 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. 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.