Burton Joyce Village Society submission In response to Nottinghamshire County Council consultation on the draft Minerals Local Plan to September 28th 2018.
The Burton Joyce Village Society is a Registered Charity working to preserve and enhance the quality of life in this village. We are confined to issues that affect Burton Joyce and therefore we are considering general principles in the current Draft Plan. We are of course well aware that In the previous exercise aimed at producing a Minerals Plan, there was, then as now, no extraction site originally proposed that would have had any great effect on this area, but that an alteration to the first draft sought to include gravel digging at Shelford, Immediately adjacent to this Parish. That plan at that stage would have had drastic effects causing serious deterioration in the quality of life and in the safety of residents here. While the new Draft Plan does not include that site, we are aware that it was one of the areas presented at the "Issues and Options" stage this year. Our concerns now are to ensure that the principles dictating the final Plan are those which would prevent the threat r e-arising here and also preserve the interests of other communities which could face a similar threat If the right approach is not adopted.
This submission Is presented under four main headings: Pollution; Traffic problems; Environmental Threats; and Flood Risk. We are looking only at Questions 1-10, 22 and 23, and the answers to those questions are broken down under those heading where relevant. We make no submissions relating
to site-specific questions for reasons stated above. I '
Question number
1. We mainly accept the vision and strategic objectives, subject to these points. Pollution, Traffic Congestion, Environmental Threats and Flood Risk will always be more severe if extraction sites are close to people's homes, so sites should be chosen to be as remote as possible from areas of settlement. This means we differ from the suggestion that an even spread of sites across the county is desirable. Nor should closeness to markets be an Important objective. Markets for aggregates tend to be mainly building sites in the part of the county already more densely inhabited, so sites near there are where they would be more destructive to the quality of life of local people through pollution, loss of amenity resulting from destruction of valued open country, Increased congestion and danger on the roads, including increased pollution from diesel exhaust, and, while statistically a low probability in any one year, the increased risk of flooding, which could be the most destructive of all. These are all real costs and would outweigh the actual cost of transporting materials from greater distances.
2. Point 3(a) in SP1 should be the most significant part of this section of the Plan: Sustainable development needs to weigh any benefits of development against the cost to communities, as detailed above.
3. We support policy SP2 with strong emphasis on the extension of existing sites as against opening of new ones. Existing sites have of course a developed infrastructure, and are mainly not close to communities. They would not therefore add to Traffic congestion or Pollution problems as any new site, even in a sparsely inhabited area would, and an increasing Flood Risks, if such is caused, is far less serious in less populated parts of the County.
4. We are frankly suspicious that the phrase "Bio-diversity-led restoration" is a euphemism for leaving abandoned workings as pits full of standing water, particularly as relating to sand and gravel extraction sites. In the area of Trent Vale, at least, even a costly and lengthy restoration to "wetland," in so far as that implies a site with thriving wildlife, is no addition to local biodiversity, since there are already more than plenty such sites here.
5. There are two aspects to the question of Climate Change. One is to avoid adding to carbon dioxide emissions and the other is to cope with the future changes already unavoidable. We repeat our opposition to siting quarrying operations near to communities; even if the product requires longer journeys then to its market this does not necessarily add to exhaust emissions, since the transport in well-inhabited areas would be slow, and create slow emission-heavy journeys for other road users as well as for the lorries carrying minerals. Reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be improved by the use of more secondary and recycled aggregates and lower use of concrete. The main risk from the changes in climate we already see is Flooding. Incidents of severe weather and consequent flooding already exceed official predictions in both frequency and severity, and no avoidable further increase in that risk is acceptable in areas of human settlement.
6. Research published this month in the journal BJP Open shows that the risks to human health, particularly from dementia, of diesel emissions are far greater than previously thought, even at the time the current Draft Plan was prepared. Diesel emissions arise from the operation of quarrying sites as well as well as the transport of their product. As already stated, slow traffic on congested roads, which necessarily follows from siting extraction sites close to communities, is a much worse producer of fuel consumption, diesel fumes and expense than fast journeys on clear roads.
7. We support the policy SP6. This should maintain, of our main purposes, the need to avoid Pollution, Environmental damage, Traffic congestion and Flood risk.
8. As always, we support the maintenance of the Green Belt. We consider this should include not simply an absence of building but the maintenance of landscapes that provide visual enhancement to people's lives.
9. We are alarmed to note in this otherwise unobjectionable section a
reference to the wharf in Colwick as being of use in the event of adding Shelford to the list of approved sites. For all the reasons stated in this submission, and for others not raised at this point in the Consultation process, any such development would be catastrophic for this village and immediately surrounding areas. We hope such reference will be deleted. Nor would the use of that wharf be any significant contribution to reduction in road traffic, since it would, if genuinely used at all, result in more destructive work on our local riverside with noisy and polluting machinery very close to homes here, and the barge journey would remove an insignificantly short part from the carriage of the aggregates concerned in diesel lorries on the already-inadequate and crowded local road that this community relies on.
10. Option B as set out under the Sustainability Appraisal findings appears to us the most realistic way of assessing future needs. Looking at historic trends should point to the fact that estimates calculated on Option A have consistently been shown to be higher than eventually required, while objective trends, which are also to be encouraged, such as the alternatives already mentioned to new-dug materials as aggregates and the reduced use of concrete should be taken more Into account. We therefore consider the figure of 32.3 million tonnes to be unnecessarily high.
22. We entirely approve of the fundamentals set out in the section Protecting local amenity. We would wish to see greater emphasis on the health risks attached to mineral extraction and associated activities. These include particularly the health problems arising from diesel engines, both in the quarrying process and subsequent transport (even by barge), the health problems arising from noise, and the ill-effects on people with breathing problems arising from dust or
associated with fogs and atmospheric saturation in areas of worked­ out flooded extraction sites. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has found that silica dust, which is put into the atmosphere In large volumes by gravel working, is carcinogenic; another reason why such activity should not be carried out near areas of habitation.
23. As previously stated, while floods (unlike landscape devastation, pollution and increased traffic) are not a guaranteed consequence of gravel digging in a river valley, they are potentially the most destructive and costly. We interpret the statement in Policy DM2, 2.3, "Proposals for mineral extraction that increase flood risk to local communities will not be supported unless the risks can be fully mitigated" to mean that such proposals will not be allowed at all unless the increase in flood risk is kept to zero. Nothing else should be acceptable.