Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

Hi Steven
Thank you for the prompt reply and the courtesy of allowing us to still comment! i apologise that my
previous comments weren't question linked!
In response to Question 3 we wanted to say Point 3. Minimise impacts on communities which reads
"Minimise the adverse impacts on Nottinghamshire's communities by protecting their quality of life and
health from impacts such as traffic visual impacts,noise and dust."
We would like to state that we consider that the impact should not be limited to adverse impact on
Nottnghamshire's communities but also neighbouring areas. We are concerned about minimising lorry
movements through our town and we find that as we are close to Nottinghamshire boundary planning
applications for minerals can still impact heavily on ourselves. (e.g the new sand and quarry extraction
application at Barnby Moor that will lead to up to 100 lorries per day going through our town, even though
we are in Yorkshire)
I would be most grateful if these comments could be included in the consultation replies.
Thank you for details of the process. i was aware that the Issues and Options consultation was an early part
of developing a new plan but wanted some details of further steps/consultations and when the plan would be
ready for examination that you have answered for me!
ind Regards
Angela Harrison
Clerk to the Council
Bawtry Town Council

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.

Q1: Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

No, Historic England has nothing further to add to the overview.

Q2: Do you agree with the draft Vision? Are there other things we should include?

The wider Vision statement is supported. However, the fourth paragraph indicates that 'historic assets' will contribute towards a 'greener' Nottinghamshire but the relationship between the two is not clear since the paragraph essentially relates to green infrastructure matters. 'Historic assets' should be replaced with either 'cultural heritage', 'the historic environment', or 'heritage assets and their setting' for clarity within the sentence and paragraph. In addition, in terms of cultural heritage, only the built environment is subsequently referred to so archaeological remains are not included and would need to be. It may be prudent to replace 'built' with 'historic' to ensure all aspects are addressed in the Vision.

Q3: Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

The identified strategic issues are appropriate but it is considered there is an omission and that conservation and enhancement of the historic environment should feature within the key strategic issues to ensure the Plan takes forward a positive approach to the historic environment as required in the NPPF.

Q4 and Q5 - both regarding forecasting methodology

Historic England has no alternative methodology to suggest at this time.

Q6: Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield sites?

Not necessarily, either option would need to demonstrate it meets the environmental, social and economic threads of sustainability as required by the NPPF, and the Plan and SA would need to demonstrate that sites taken forward have been considered in relation to alternative options.

Q7: Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?

Possibly, but this would depend on the outcome of any Call for Sites and subsequent site assessment and this information is not available at this time.

Q8: How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel across the County... to minimise the distance minerals are transported to markets?

The Plan and SA should recognise synergy between mineral extraction related traffic and the historic environment in terms of impact on heritage assets, for example through traffic impacts on Conservation Areas and heavy vehicle noise and vibration impacts on Listed Buildings.

Q9: Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

Historic England is of the view that sites put forward for consideration as being taken forward in the Plan should be done so by using a robust site selection methodology. We recommend that Historic England Advice Note 3: The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans and Historic England Good Practice in Planning 3: The setting of heritage assets (2nd edition) be used as a basis for the site selection methodology in respect of the historic environment:

<https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/>

<https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/>

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?

Historic England has no evidence to support or oppose the matter of whether transportation of minerals by barge is economical. Any proposed quarry would need to be identified through a robust site selection methodology in relation to the historic environment, amongst others.

Q11: Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered.

Q12 relating to additional crushed rock reserve requirements

Historic England has no evidence to suggest that additional crushed rock reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the Plan period.

Q13: Are you aware of any other issues relating to crushed rock provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered.

Q14: Are you aware of any other issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered.

Q15: Should the Plan identify a specific replacement quarry (remote extension/new site) to Dorket Head clay pit or should a criteria based policy be developed to ensure an adequate supply of clay can be maintained over the plan period?

Historic England is of the view that a specific replacement quarry would be the preferred option in order for full consideration of impact on heritage assets and setting to be undertaken. Sites put forward for consideration as being taken forward in the Plan should be done so based on a robust site selection methodology for the historic environment. We recommend that Historic England Advice Note 3: The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans and Historic England Good Practice in Planning 3: The setting of heritage assets (2nd edition) be used as a basis for the site selection methodology in respect of the historic environment.

Q16: Is a criteria based policy the most suitable approach to cover the potential for new brick works and associated clay pits?

No - Historic England is of the view that any new brick works and their associated clay pits should have a specific policy, or policies, to ensure that there is no confusion between clay pits for any new brick works and the use of the same clay pits for supplying clay to existing brick works i.e. potential viability issues in addition to potentially unnecessary harm to heritage assets and their setting through, possibly, unnecessary new brick work development.

Q17: Should the plan seek to identify specific site allocations for gypsum provision or should a criteria based policy be developed to ensure an adequate supply of gypsum can be maintained over the Plan period?

Historic England is of the view that specific site allocations would be the preferred option in order for full consideration of impact on heritage assets and setting to be undertaken, particularly since the Issues and Options document sets out that specific grades of gypsum are dictated by location. Sites put forward for consideration as being taken forward in the Plan should be done so based on a robust site selection methodology for the historic environment. We recommend that Historic England Advice Note 3: The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans and Historic England Good Practice in Planning 3: The setting of heritage assets (2nd edition) be used as a basis for the site selection methodology in respect of the historic environment.

Q18: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of gypsum that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered.

Q19: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Silica Sand that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

Historic England is not aware of any issues relating to provision during the proposed Plan period that should be considered. However, we would recommend that justification text in the Plan sets out that the proposed criteria based approach is being taken due to current supply forecasts for the mineral, and that the situation be revisited at the next Mineral Local Plan review/trigger to establish whether a site allocation approach may be required at that time. This would ensure that a positive approach to the historic environment could be demonstrated in the Plan.

Q20: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

Historic England has serious concerns about the extraction of dolomite in the Holbeck area due to the potential harm to heritage assets and their setting. These include Creswell Crags (Scheduled Monument), the Conservation Area, and Welbeck Abbey Registered Park and Garden.

We are of the view that due to the potential site area being limited to this area of the County, due to geological formations, and the presence of high value heritage assets which would need to be considered fully in respect of the Plan, a site allocation and specific site policy would be required within the Plan.

Consideration of the site would need to be informed by a Heritage Impact Assessment which should include a rigorous analysis of the contribution made by the setting on the significance of heritage assets in line with Historic England Good Practice Advice 3: The setting of heritage assets (2nd edition). The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

Heritage impact information would also need to look at how both Neanderthal and human populations across the Paleolithic used the landscape to interact with resources. Documentation should engage with recent and current research on comparable Paleolithic sites such as Bradgate Park, Leicestershire and comparable Neanderthal sites such as Glaston, Rutland. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated, as supported by the cave art at Creswell. The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context, as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge, is central to its significance.

Any heritage impact assessment would need to focus on heritage solely with separate documentation to present any economic and social elements in order for public benefits to be considered appropriately.

Any economic information would need to consider the outcome of Derbyshire County Council application CM5/0416/4 for a further 3.23mt from new sites within the existing Whitwell site in addition to the approval of the main site for extraction to continue until 2040. In addition, the most current situation with the Thrislington site would need to be considered since it is our understanding that the site was mothballed for industrial dolomite in 2015 due to the demise in the UK steel industry and, whilst the site has been granted permission for further mineral workings they are unlikely to be industrial dolomite due to lower grade resources now available there. Any impact this may have on the supply for the national market would need to be explored during the Plan process since the existing UK supplies may be retained for national use rather than export and it may be prudent to consider alternative sources. In addition, any economic information should consider the impact of a minerals site allocation on the local economy in respect of tourism related to Creswell Crags caves and the wider heritage site.

Q21: Is there evidence to suggest that additional building stone reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the plan period? If so please provide this evidence.

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further evidence that should be considered.

Q22: Are you aware of any other issues relating to building stone provision that should be considered thought the Minerals Plan Review?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered.

Q23: Are you aware of any issues relating to coal extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered.

Q24: Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered. The proposed criteria based policy for hydrocarbons is noted.

Q25: Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

Historic England supports the inclusion of 'Landscape Character' and 'Historic Environment' policy topics.

Q26: Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered though the Minerals Plan review?

Historic England is not aware at this stage of any further issues that should be considered.

Planning consultation: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options; Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

Thank you for your consultation on the above documents dated 01 November 2017 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

1. Issues and Options

Natural England generally welcomes the Plan and is particularly pleased to note the continuing approach to encourage biodiversity-led restoration which has been followed in previous versions of the Minerals Local Plan. We have addressed the questions, posed in the document, which are of particular relevance to our interests in the natural environment:

Q1. Overview of the Plan Area
We consider that this section provides a satisfactory overview of the plan area. We particularly welcome the recognition of the importance of the designations within Sherwood Forest area including the Special Area of Conservation and the possible potential Special Protection Area (ppSPA). We would however suggest that it should be clear that there are other nationally and locally important nature conservation sites throughout the County.

Q2. Vision
Natural England generally agrees with the Vision particularly paragraph 4 which aspires to improve the natural environment, contribute to landscape-scale biodiversity delivery and create ecological networks. We suggest however that the vision also includes climate change for example "New development will take positive action to mitigate and adapt to climate change"

Q3. Strategic Issues
We consider that the strategic issues are appropriate and we welcome the inclusion of the issue to encourage biodiversity-led restoration in worked out quarries. We also agree that the restoration proposals should be addressed at the earliest possible stages of an application. We suggest however that the following should also be included within this section as the plan progresses:
* After uses should be identified which best meet local circumstances and where appropriate should include the enhancement of existing and the creation of new priority habitats, resulting in a net gain for biodiversity.

* Opportunities should be encouraged to make landscape-scale gains to biodiversity and green infrastructure enhancing wider ecological networks.
* The protection of Nottinghamshire's high quality agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) and soil.
* Consideration of natural flood management and flood plain restoration.
* Consideration of community benefits which should include the provision of a long term legacy for environmental and heritage assets including enhanced access and green infrastructure opportunities.

Q4&5. Minerals Provision
Natural England would not comment on the aggregate demand as such but advises that the agreed aggregate apportionment should be able to be delivered without unacceptable environmental impacts.

Q6&7. Strategic Approach to New Mineral Development sites
With respect to the question of whether extensions to existing quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield sites we would suggest that the decision should consider the merits of each individual situation. In all case there should be no damage to designated sites or protected landscapes. In addition opportunities for landscape scale biodiversity and green infrastructure gains/enhancements should be considered. Likewise for approaches for different minerals sites we suggest that each site should be considered on the individual situation.

Sand and gravel provision geographical spread
Q8. In all case there should be no damage to designated sites or protected landscapes. In addition opportunities for landscape scale biodiversity and green infrastructure gains/enhancements should be considered.
Q9. When determining which specific areas to prioritise over others we suggest that it is important to consider where there are opportunities to enhance ecological networks and green infrastructure. We would suggest that a landscape scale approach should be taken for maximum benefit for nature conservation. For example the "Bigger & Better" strategy for the Trent Valley offers an important example of strategic biodiversity enhancement from the restoration of sand & gravel sites.
Q10. We would encourage opportunities for the most sustainable form of transport. The plan should reflect the NPPF emphasis on supporting development that facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport that reduce the need for new infrastructure.

Q11 Sherwood Sandstone provision
It is important to protect the sandstone aquifer and we note that this has been included in the Sustainable Appraisal scoping report. This area includes sites which fall in close proximity to areas important for nightjars and woodlarks and that have been identified for inclusion in the Sherwood Forest ppSPA we therefore suggest that this should be considered within the plan.

Q19. Silica Sand provision
We suggest that the continued working for silica sand at The Two Oaks site should consider the impact on the nightjar and woodlark populations and the Sherwood ppSPA which are in close proximity.

Q20 Provision of industrial dolomite
We would wish to ensure the protection of the Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the Whitwell area
i.e. Ginny Spring and Whitwell Wood SSSI and Cresswell Craggs SSSI.


Q24 Hydrocarbons
For proposals to extract hydrocarbons we emphasise the importance of protecting designated sites and protected species from the direct and indirect impact of the activity including air, water, soil and

noise pollution. In cases were relatively new technologies are employed we would advise that a precautionary approach is followed.

We have particular concerns with the air quality in the Sherwood Forest area which may impact on designated sites and sensitive habitats. We would therefore need reassurance that the extraction of Coal bed methane would not result in an adverse impact on air quality.

Q25 Development Management Policy Areas
Natural England acknowledges that the proposed development management policy areas which have been set out are appropriate and suggest that the future development policies should consider the following:
Water resources and flood risk
Development management policies would need to protect habitats from water related impacts resulting from mineral development and seek enhancement, especially for designated sites. Policies should also aim to positively contribute to reducing flood risk by working with natural processes, which could result in significant gains for biodiversity and green infrastructure.
Agricultural Land & Soil Quality
The plan should safeguard the long term capability of best and most versatile agricultural land. It should make it clear that areas of lower quality agricultural land should be used for development in preference to best and most versatile land and recognise that extraction can have an irreversible adverse (cumulative) impact on BMV land. Avoiding the use of high grade land is the priority as mitigation is rarely possible, even with the best restoration standards.
Where alternative afteruses (such as forestry or nature conservation) are proposed on BMV land the methods used in restoration and aftercare should enable the land to retain its longer- term capability, thus remaining a high quality resource for the future. (For further information on soils see annexe 1 attached).

Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity
Development management policies need to set out that any proposal that adversely affects a European site, or causes significant harm to a SSSI will not normally be granted permission to reflect the advice in paragraph 113 of the NPPF. The policies should following appropriate guidance including the Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Opportunities Mapping, and relevant Green Infrastructure strategies.

Landscape character
The policies should take account of the character of different areas and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. We suggest that reference is made to National Character Areas (NCAs) which provide valuable information on local landscapes (see below under comments on the Scoping Report)

Restoration and aftercare
The plan should ensure high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites, including for agriculture, geodiversity, biodiversity, native woodland, the historic environment and recreation.
The plan should set out the key principles for restoration including:
* Opportunities to enhance landscape character (NPPF156, 109),
* An assessment of existing and potential components of ecological networks (NPPF165),
* A strategic approach in for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity (linked to national and local targets) and green infrastructure (NPPF114),
* Rights of way and access to nature in general (NPPF 9 & 75),
* Maintaining soil quality (NPPF112)

Restoration should also include provision for appropriate aftercare of the site, especially where priority habitat has been created together with long term management agreements. We suggest that each minerals allocation is accompanied by a site brief which details the type of habitats

that restoration should achieve together with appropriate management plans.

Dear Sir/Madam

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options

Thank you for consulting Rushcliffe Borough Council on the Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options and supporting Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report.
Having read the document, please accept the following responses to selected questions which are pertinent to minerals developments in Rushcliffe.

Minerals Local Plan

Q1 Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

Rushcliffe Borough Council considers the information within the overview sufficient as an introduction to the minerals local plan. Whilst not critical, Plan 1 (Spatial portrait of Nottinghamshire) should accurately identify the inner Green Belt around the edge of the main urban area within Rushcliffe. The removal of Green Belt land to accommodate the strategic urban extensions on land south of Clifton, at Edwalton and east of Gamston are not shown.

Q2 Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

Rushcliffe Borough Council broadly supports the overarching vision.

However the vision should not prioritise proximity to major markets, growth areas and sustainable transport nodes. Whilst these are important considerations, the location of minerals development should also consider environmental constraints (including impacts on the natural environment and local communities).
Consequently the second paragraph should read:

"Within geological and wider environmental constraints, minerals development will be concentrated in locations that offer..."

Furthermore, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (avoid, mitigate and last resort compensate), prioritise sites with less harmful impacts and avoids adverse impacts on the environment rather than mitigation or compensations measures such as appropriate working, restoration and after-use. The fourth paragraph should read:

"All minerals workings will contribute towards a greener Nottinghamshire by ensuring that the County's diverse environmental and historic assets are protected, maintained and enhanced through the sensitive selection of minerals sites, appropriate working, restoration and after use."

Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

Rushcliffe Borough Council supports the key strategic issues.

Q4 Do you think the average 10 years sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.

Rushcliffe Borough Council supports the use of the average 10 years sales figures as the basis for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire. This methodology is required by paragraph 145. However, other local information may be used to support this forecasting.

Q5 Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

The same methodology should be used for each aggregate, however as stated above local factors may have implications for different aggregates.

Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new green field quarries?

Subject to any environmental constraints, Rushcliffe Borough Council support the prioritisation of extensions to existing permitted quarries rather than new green field quarries, as the infrastructure for extraction, processing and transportation is in place.

Q7 Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?

Yes, depending on remaining reserves, feasibility of extraction, impacts on the environment and human health which may constrain extensions to existing permitted quarries.

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?

Rushcliffe Borough Council considers the geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the County is important. As this will meet demand both within and outside the County, including Greater Nottingham, South Yorkshire and elsewhere in the East Midlands.

Q9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

It would be appropriate to prioritise specific areas, depending on the socio-economic and environmental benefits these areas provide relative to each other. Whilst the proximity to markets is an important factor, it should not be the overriding consideration. Impacts on local populations and the natural environment must be equally weighted and assessed through 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?

Whilst Rushcliffe Borough Council has no position regarding the economics of transporting minerals by river barge, doing so clearly brings environmental benefits and reduces adverse impacts on the highway network and amenity of local residents.

If the potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge is identified as a positive factor when identifying quarries in the minerals plan, the ability to transport the mineral in this manner must be realised. Criteria based policies that support allocations and ensure they deliver sustainable development should therefore require this transportation method.

Q17 Should the plan seek to identify specific site allocations for gypsum provision or should a criteria based policy be developed to ensure an adequate supply of gypsum can be maintained over the plan period?

As permitted reserves exist at East Leake and Balderton (these should be sufficient to 2026 and 2027 respectively) and there is considerable uncertainty regarding future demand beyond this date (due to the closure of coal fired power stations which provide desulphogypsum and unknown future demand for specific grades of gypsum during the plan period), Rushcliffe Borough Council support the use of criteria based policy rather than the identification of specific site allocations.

Q18 are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of gypsum that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

Rushcliffe Borough Council notes that the Issues and Options consultation identifies the closure of coal fired power stations, including the Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station, by 2025 and the

subsequent reduction in supply of desulphogypsum. As recognised, this may have particular implications for the demand for Gypsum resources in Rushcliffe.

Q24 Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Rushcliffe Borough Council supports the inclusion of criteria based policies which protect local communities and the natural environment from unacceptable direct and indirect environmental impacts of hydrocarbon extraction facilities during their construction and operation.

Q25 Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

Rushcliffe Borough Council welcomes and supports the development management policies proposed.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

Having read the SA Scoping Report, Rushcliffe Borough Council supports: the methodology proposed; the main sustainability issues identified; the documents that form the evidence base; and the SA objectives and decision making criteria. We have no detailed comments on the SA at this stage.

We look forward to reviewing the next iteration of the Minerals Local Plan and supporting SA in due course.

This concludes Rushcliffe Borough Council's representation.

If you would like to discuss our comments on the emerging plan, please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely

John King MRTPI Planning Policy Officer
Rushcliffe Borough Council.

Re: Minerals Local Plan Consultation - Issues and Options

Thank you for consulting NWT on the above. NWT strongly welcome the MPA's continued approach in seeking to embed the large scale restoration and re-creation of biodiversity into the MLP. NWT supports the MLP's aim to create more habitat, larger areas of habitat, enhanced habitat and habitats that are linked, as this is in accordance with the aims of the Lawton Review and the Natural Environment White Paper. We have welcomed the opportunity to work with the MPA for several years on discussing the concepts behind this approach and also recognise that a great deal of good biodiversity restoration has been both approved and undertaken under the period of the current MLP. We look forward to working in a similar manner with the MPA in the future, underpinned by a shared vision for the substantive conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the County.
In this response, I have followed the normal convention of showing the existing text from the consultation document in italics and recommended changes in bold italics.


Q1 Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

NWT support the overview in general, but would like to see more explicit recognition given to the value of the range of ecologically designated sites in the County, we would suggest:


" Nottinghamshire also supports a wide network of important sites for nature conservation, the most important focused within Sherwood Forest, near Edwinstowe. This includes a Special Area of Conservation and possible future Special Protection Area, both of which hold international status. There is however a significant network of SSSIs and LWS across the County, representing the wide range of habitat types found on the diverse geology of the County and hosting diverse, and often scarce, species of flora and fauna. Some of these habitats have been created as a result of well-planned, biodiversity-led restoration of former mineral sites.


Q2 Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

NWT agree strongly with the draft Vision in general, but would hope to see the addition of a specific reference to priority habitats, not least as this recognises the potential for mineral restoration to meet national and local targets for BAP/Sn41 Habitats of Principal Importance.

"All mineral workings will contribute towards a greener Nottinghamshire by ensuring that the County's diverse environmental and historic assets are protected, maintained and enhanced through appropriate working, restoration and after-use. This will result in improvements to the built and natural environment, and contribute to landscape-scale biodiversity delivery of priority habitats; and the re-connection of ecological networks. "

NWT would also like to see a reference to the need for mineral working to both reduce and mitigate for the effects of climate change.
Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

NWT support the issues as stated, but would expect to see a stronger emphasis on environmental protection. This could fit into Issue 1 as follows:
"1. Improving the sustainability of minerals development

Ensuring that primary minerals are worked in the most sustainable manner, with strict safeguards to ensure the protection of the County's natural and historic heritage, and that the use of secondary and recycled aggregates is encouraged. Securing a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire."


NWT strongly welcome the MPA's approach in seeking to embed the large scale restoration and re-creation of biodiversity into the MLP. NWT supports the MLP's intention to follow the the aims of the Lawton Review and the Natural Environment White Paper. It is particularly important, however, that adequate and long term financial provision is made for the future management of the restored habitats, and also that both existing and restored habitats are protected. The biodiversity gains of a mineral scheme cannot be claimed if the habitats become lost or degraded once the statutory 5 year aftercare period has ended. Sadly, this has happened on occasions in Notts in the past. NWT would therefore suggest the following addition to the text:

"4. Biodiversity led restoration of worked out quarries

Ensuring that areas of existing high biodiversity value within proposed quarries are protected and enhanced through the scheme, and 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 are addressed at an early stage of the application process. It is essential that adequate and long term provision is made for the protection and management of the restored habitats and that this is secured by legal obligations."


Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?

NWT consider that extensions are generally more sustainable from an ecological perspective than new greenfield quarries, but there may be areas of high ecological value in proximity to existing sites which should be a limiting factor as such areas of natural capital may not be replaceable. Where (chronological or spatial) extensions are proposed, they should also enable a review of the existing restoration scheme to ensure that it meets the current biodiversity-led approach and is making the best possible contribution to meeting targets for the re-creation of priority habitats. New greenfield quarries may provide opportunities for better designed, landscape-scale restoration schemes, but may also have higher impacts on existing habitat and species of value. Therefore NWT consider that each proposal must be considered on a site by site basis.

Q7 Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?


NWT consider that the issues described in the answer to Q6 can apply to all mineral types, particularly the presence of existing habitats and species of high ecological value and the potential for the restoration of priority habitats. Therefore the assessment should be done on a site by site basis for all mineral types.


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?

From a sustainability perspective NWT would hope to see transportation of large quantities of mineral reduced as far as possible, which might indicate that it would be better to seek to secure a spread of allocations which can serve the disparate markets, but local environmental constraints should be the principal and deciding factor.

Q9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

Local environmental factors and impacts should be the principal consideration. Other factors such as the potential for the re-creation of landscape-scale habitats, for floodplain reconnection and natural flood management and the creation of important ecological stepping stones should all be accorded significant weight. It is essential that there is a stronger drive towards seeking to secure floodplain connection of restored sand and gravel

sites to the Trent and Idle, as part of mineral schemes, which would have significant biodiversity and flood storage benefits, as well as ensuring that mineral reserves are efficiently worked, where they lie below current floodbanks.


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?

NWT do not have a view on the economic viability of barge transportation, but would expect a robust assessment of the potential environmental effects to be undertaken, before such an approach could be supported. Barge transport may have benefits with regard to reductions in HGV transport and greenhouse gas emissions, but may result in local environmental impacts to biodiversity, or water quality and hydromorphology.
Q11 Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?


Extensions to existing sandstone quarries may have impacts on priority habitats and species, including heathland, woodland, and nightjar and woodlark in the ppSPA. These factors should be taken into account when considering proposals on where best to allocate extensions. It should be noted that extensions of time may also result in unacceptable extensions of impacts of noise, vibration and dust on sensitive species, so this should also be considered. . If new or extended sites were to be under consideration for allocation, their potential to contribute to larger areas of heathland and acid grassland habitats and to the strengthening of an ecological network should be a heavily weighted factor. The potential strengthening of ecological networks can be calculated through the BOM model


Q13 Are you aware of any other issues relating to crushed rock provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

A spatial extension to Nether Langwith Quarry within the Plan period would have substantial implications for priority magnesian limestone habitats and nearby SSSIs. The calcareous habitats of the magnesian limestone are some of the scarcest and most threatened in the County, so this should be part of the considerations for any new sites or extension. If new or extended sites are to be under consideration for allocation, their potential to contribute to larger areas of calcareous habitats and to the strengthening of an ecological network should be a heavily weighted factor. The potential strengthening of ecological networks can be calculated through the BOM model

Q15 Should the Plan identify a specific replacement quarry (remote extension / new site) to Dorket Head clay pit or should a criteria based policy be developed to ensure an adequate supply of clay can be maintained over the plan period?

NWT consider that the higher level of certainty of location and outcomes for an allocation over a criteria-based policy can be beneficial for all parties, including local communities. A

known location enables a more accurate assessment of both impacts and potential restoration benefits at an early stage. A comparison of the relative disbenefits and benefits of sites at a plan-making stage also enables a more robust sustainability appraisal If new or extended sites are to be under consideration for allocation, their potential to contribute to larger areas of priority habitats and to the strengthening of an ecological network should be a heavily weighted factor. The potential strengthening of ecological networks can be calculated through the BOM model. Habitats suitable for the brick-clay geology include native broadleaved woodland, species-rich neutral grassland, small ponds, marsh and reedbed. As with all new allocations and extensions, the potential for impacts on existing habitats and species should be a principal consideration.

Q16 Is a criteria based policy the most suitable approach to cover the potential for new brick works and associated clay pits?


For the reasons given in answer to Q16, NWT do not consider this to be the most suitable approach. If a criteria-based policy were to be developed, the ecological factors described in NWT's answer to Q15 should form part of those criteria.
Q17 Should the plan seek to identify specific site allocations for gypsum provision or should a criteria based policy be developed to ensure an adequate supply of gypsum can be maintained over the Plan period?

NWT consider that the higher level of certainty of location and outcomes for an allocation over a criteria-based policy can be beneficial for all parties, including local communities. A known location enables a more accurate assessment of both impacts and potential restoration benefits at an early stage. A comparison of the relative disbenefits and benefits of sites at a plan-making stage also enables a more robust sustainability appraisal. If new or extended sites are to be under consideration for allocation, their potential to contribute to larger areas of priority habitats and to the strengthening of an ecological network should be a heavily weighted factor. The potential strengthening of ecological networks can be calculated through the BOM model. Habitats suitable for the gypsum geology include species-rich calcareous grassland, native broadleaved woodland, small ponds and marsh. As with all new allocations and extensions, the potential for impacts on existing habitats and species should be a principal consideration.

Q18 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of gypsum that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

New or extended gypsum quarries can have an impact on existing calcareous habitats of value, and may also have the potential for the delivery of large scale calcareous and wetland habitats. An extension to underground Gypsum mining is likely to have relatively less impact on existing habitats, although impacts on water quality and quantity may be an issue. Such mines also offer little opportunity for habitat restoration, due to their relatively small footprint above ground.


Q19 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Silica Sand

that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

There is currently an adequate supply for the Plan period and so no new allocation is needed. An extension of Two Oaks Farm Quarry could have impacts on nightjar and woodlark within the Sherwood ppSPA. It is essential that the Plan identifies the need for the Two Oaks Farm Quarry restoration to maximise its contribution to the re-creation and restoration of priority habitats, particularly heathland and acid grassland, so that it fully conforms with the principles of biodiversity-led restoration and the long term provision for the protection and management of the restored habitats is secured. These principles should inform the ROMP for this site.
Q20 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

Given that there is no exact confirmed location for the extraction of this mineral in Notts, we do not know what scarce and valuable habitats may, or may not, be present on any future proposed site. Given that the location would be in the Holwell area, however, of particular concern would be the potential loss of calcareous habitats and impacts on calcareous LWS and SSSI in that area.
Q22 Are you aware of any other issues relating to building stone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?


There would be ecological impacts from an extension at Yellowstone Quarry, given its proximity to LWS and a SSSI. Based on the current site, there is the potential for indirect impacts on local water courses through changes to water quality, and also on protected species. Thus any extension to the Yellowstone Quarry would need to be subject to the most robust assessment of the potential impacts on these habitats and species, both direct and indirect.


Q23 Are you aware of any issues relating to coal extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

NWT agree that reworking of lagoons and tips for marketable coal fines is still a possibility For potential sites, account should be taken of the existing wildlife value and also the potential for improved restoration over that which was undertaken previously, to achieve the re-creation of priority habitats, particularly heathland and acid grassland.


Q24 Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

NWT note that the focus in the text remains on reducing the impacts of the techniques of mineral extraction on climate change, whilst potentially supporting extraction of energy minerals which will fundamentally contribute to further greenhouse gas emissions. There should be greater emphasis on reducing hydrocarbon extraction per se, in order to meet national and global climate change reduction targets. With regard to the greenhouse gases

produced by different extraction methods, it is not clear how comparisons would be made as to the effectiveness of the different extraction methods for the energy produced versus the greenhouse gases released. This is particularly pertinent in relation to comparisons between coal, oil, CBM, CMM and shale gas. This requires explanation and clarification.
Oil - Specific consideration is needed for the requirement of new oil extraction schemes to result in enhanced priority habitats, as in some cases the relatively small scale of such scheme, but large number of sites, has lead to incremental impacts and degradation of habitats over several years, which has led to an overall loss of biodiversity when considered in the round. This should be recognised in any future provision through a robust assessment of likely cumulative effects on biodiversity.
CMM - given the location of most suitable seams/former mine sites, specific reference should be made to the potential for disturbance to nightjar and woodlark and need to assess the cumulative effects of nitrogen emissions from burning CMM on sensitive heathland habitats.
CBM and Shale Gas - The relatively unproven nature of these technologies when applied to the UK should predicate a highly precautionary approach, particularly given the unpredictable nature of the behaviour of the sandstone geology of the County which overlays much of the northern shale beds. This unpredictability is evidenced both by deep- mine accidents in Sherwood in recent history where unexpected pockets of methane have been encountered in fractured stone and also by the above-ground subsidence effects of planned mining activity, which do not always appear to happen as predicted by the industry. Both CBM, and Shale Gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing have the potential for far- reaching impacts on the quantity and quality of surface and groundwaters and through effects of noise and vibration, which may impact valuable habitats and sensitive species. Robust and very precautionary assessment is therefore required of any such schemes.

Q25 Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?


NWT agree strongly that DM policies are required for all the areas listed and consider that the following details should be taken into account when developing the policies:

* Water resources and flood risk
All mineral schemes should meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. Particular regard should be given for the potential for mineral schemes to deliver reduced flood risk through incorporating Natural Flood Management and to improve the hydromorphology or rivers through floodplain re-connection, naturalisation of channels etc.

* Agricultural land and soil quality

NWT are mindful that mineral restoration decisions can create an apparent conflict between the need for restoration to biodiversity-rich habitats and a perceived need to retain

agricultural land. NWT recognise that agricultural land and B&MV soils are a finite resource, but it is a fact that land occupied by wildlife habitats is a far smaller resource and is subject to many pressures. Wildlife-rich land also provides a diverse landscape, contributes to many ecosystem services, and is often available for informal recreation, and so is highly valued by local people. Restoring mineral sites to wildlife-rich diverse landscapes, which they can access for informal recreation, can help to compensate local communities for the disruption and disturbance caused by a mining scheme.
Based on the proposed allocations in the previous version of the draft MLP, the total area that would be affected by schemes was approximately 800ha, thus if the new Plan contains a similar level of sites, and all were restored solely to priority habitats, this would amount to 0.5% of the 140,000+ha of farmland in the County, and thus would have no meaningful impact on food security at all, but would constitute a significant gain towards biodiversity targets, as the current area of biodiversity habitats is so small. It is also important to note that this not a permanent loss of land for food production (as it would be were it to be built on for example), as all the farmland was converted from habitats in the first place. Hence, in the unlikely event of a food security crisis, the land could be brought into food production again. It is also worth noting that land previously in food production is now also being used voluntarily for biomass energy production by farmers. Whilst NWT recognises that there may be issues relating to individual agricultural holdings and how they may be affected by restoration schemes on a small number of sites, this should be considered on a site by site basis and not as a means to undermine the overarching policy of biodiversity-led restoration.

There is also a distinction to be made between protecting agricultural land specifically and protecting B&MV soils. We consider that focussing more on the protection of B&MV soils as a finite resource is a more sustainable way forward than focussing on the need for land to be in agricultural product per se. The relationship between the conservation of soils and the potential to deliver habitats is an important consideration and should reflect that several of the priority habitats such as species-rich grasslands, floodplain grazing marshes and heathland can be managed through extensive grazing, which is a form of pastoral farming.

Government Policy for more than 20 years has been to reduce the amount of land in agricultural production and to increase the land managed for conservation, through agri- environment subsidies. Mineral extraction provides a means to achieve this aim, without recourse to public funds. NWT recognises that B&MV agricultural soils are important in terms of food security, but this should be viewed in context of the many millions of pounds that have been paid to farmers to take land out of agricultural production through Countryside Stewardship Schemes by DEFRA, with the specific aim of trying to protect, conserve and increase biodiversity and also to enhance the landscape. In Nottinghamshire this equates to 112,559ha in some form of Stewardship, out of a total farmed area of 140,797ha, which is 79.9% of the farmland (Defra 2010 data).

These publicly funded environmental land management schemes (ELMS) are part of the Government drive to deliver the challenging targets in "Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services"1. Public bodies have a statutory duty under the NERC Act to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and to help to achieve these

1 Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 19 August 2011

targets. Mineral extraction and the subsequent land reclamation provides an almost unique opportunity (because of its scale and the transformative potential that results from the mass movement of soils and changes to hydrology) to restore and re-create our most important BAP/Section 41 habitats on a meaningful scale, and so is an opportunity that should not be squandered.

For some habitats, conventional agricultural profiles can be restored and the habitats established on top, so that were a real food security crisis to occur, the land could be returned to intensive agriculture. These habitats could include woodlands and certain types of grassland.

Other habitats, such as heathland, are more effectively restored on thinner soil profiles, with less topsoil,. In this case the topsoil could be used either by concentrating it within some areas of the site to create deeper profiles for other habitats, or preferably used elsewhere off-site to augment and improve existing farmland. In this latter case the soils are conserved and put to better use elsewhere to increase productivity. Hence it is the soils that are of value to food production, not the area of land per se.


* Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity

NWT welcome the strong recognition for the need for both protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity. It is essential that the Plan emphasises the requirement to follow the Mitigation Hierarchy ie. the need to prioritise the avoidance of impacts, before mitigation and compensation are considered.
NWT expect to see the recognition of the importance of all ecologically important sites, including SSSIs, the SAC, NNR the ppSPA and Local Wildlife Sites, and the need to protect them. LWS constitute irreplaceable natural capital, particularly in Nottinghamshire where we have a low coverage of SSSIs (3,135ha out of 216,000 total area of the County, which is 1.45%) compared to other Counties, so the habitats within LWS represent a crucially important biodiversity resource and are irreplaceable natural capital. If we are to achieve landscape-scale conservation in Nottinghamshire, in line with the Lawton recommendations, it is essential to protect LWS as they contain the species that will be needed to colonise the new areas of restored habitats. In addition, because the SSSI suite is nationally representative, not comprehensive, there are LWS that may be nationally important, but have not been designated as SSSIs.


There is no specific reference to air pollution in the list of DM policy areas. It may be that this would be considered under Local Amenity, however it is important to note that this is also particularly relevant to habitats too. Nitrogen deposition is considered one of the greatest threats to habitats across Europe, with particularly severe effects on habitats such as heathland with require low nutrient levels. Increases in Nitrogen act as fertilisers in such habitats leading to a loss of species diversity. For the MLP, this is particularly pertinent to sandstone extraction in the Sherwood area and to emissions from hydrocarbon extraction. The impacts of ammonia and particulate emissions should also be a consideration in DM policies.

* Airfield safeguarding

Safeguarding is obviously important but should also be underpinned by robust science and a reasonable approach, in order to prevent interpretation that prevents restoration of a wide range of wetland habitats across large areas of the County.

* Planning obligations

Planning obligations are essential in ensuring the long term protection and management of restored habitats, and developers should be expected to bring forward proposals to meet these requirements at the earliest stage, before determination.

* Restoration, afteruse and aftercare

NWT welcomes NCC's commitment in this Plan to ensure that mineral schemes can help Nottinghamshire is to meet its local and national targets for protecting, conserving and enhancing biodiversity.
It is important, to recognise that all types of mineral extraction can lead to significant habitat gains through biodiversity-led restoration, and so use should be made of the outcomes of Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping by the Biodiversity Action Group across the County. Some of these areas, such as within Sherwood Forest, have the potential to deliver restoration of lowland heath, and limestone extraction in the west of the County may contribute to the creation of calcareous grasslands, both of which habitats are internationally scarce, hence it is important that the potential for the full range of habitats being delivered through mineral restoration be explicit in the DM policy. NWT have long identified Living Landscape areas in the County where the re-creation of ecological networks is of the highest priority, many of these coincide with areas of potential mineral extraction, and so are pertinent to this Plan. A map of the Living Landscape Areas is attached.
It is also essential that the biodiversity benefits required under restoration schemes can be maintained in the long term. There is no meaningful benefit to biodiversity, landscape quality or local communities if the habitats are ploughed up, or fall out of suitable management, as soon as the aftercare period has ended. In order to achieve this, it is important to ensure that long term financial provision (or some other mechanism) to maintain those habitats is agreed before the application is determined. There have been examples of where restored habitats have been lost as a result of cessation of appropriate management after the end of the statutory aftercare period. Excellent examples of long term provision have been agreed in Nottinghamshire for some sites, and can be used as an exemplar in the future. This would not only ensure that a meaningful and lasting contribution to biodiversity targets has been made, but also that local communities can have certainty of long term landscape quality as recompense for the loss of amenity experienced as a result of the scheme. This is essential to the delivery of the biodiversity-led approach and should be explicit in DM policy.
The use of site restoration briefs at an allocation stage in the previous version of the draft MLP was an exemplary and constructive approach and should be replicated in this Plan, and the creation of priority biodiversity habitats should be the primary restoration aim for all allocations and extensions.

It is also important to recognise that mineral extraction can present opportunities to re-create habitats that are hard to re-create on intensively farmed land, due to the years of soil modification for farming that have resulted in very high nutrient levels and high alkalinity (from the addition of lime) and also the existence of extensive under-drainage infrastructure. Heathland restoration on arable land, for example, requires intensive removal of nutrients through either top-soil stripping or the growing of sacrificial crops for at least 2 years, combined with the addition of large quantities of acidic material to lower the pH. Thus large scale habitat re-creation of heathland can be far more easily, and effectively, achieved through prioritising restoration of suitable mineral sites where the substrate is acidic, and has low nutrient status, such as on colliery tips and sand quarries. This is a far more effective way to recreate these national priority habitats for the public good, as a byproduct of the private sector minerals industry, than by publicly funded schemes on land that requires substantive, and unsustainable, amelioration.
Through the BOM project it will be possible set robust habitat targets for each NCA in the County and as a result, during the development period of this new Plan it will be possible to set scientifically robust minima habitat targets that could be achieved through mineral schemes.
Using the existing NE Natural Character Area approach the key habitats for each NCA in the County are shown below, those in italics are the most difficult to re-create and/or reliant on very specific geological or topographical conditions which can often be readily achieved through mineral extraction, as described above, this can be used to inform the restoration details of the MLP.:
Sherwood: lowland heath, acid grassland, small ponds (especially for amphibians), marsh, oak-birch woodland
Southern Magnesian Limestone: calcareous grassland, ash-dominated woodland, streams, ponds, hedgerows
Coal Measures: wet grassland/floodplain grazing marsh, species-rich neutral grassland (meadows), ponds, rivers and streams, oak-dominated woodland, acid grassland/lowland heath, hedgerows, ditches
Humberhead Levels: rivers and streams, fen, marsh, floodplain grazing marsh/seasonally wet grassland, reedbed, wet woodland, acid grassland (where it abuts the northern outreach of the sandstone), including channel re-braiding and reconnection, hedgerows, ditches.
Trent Valley and Rises: : rivers and streams, swamp, marsh, floodplain grazing marsh/seasonally wet grassland, reedbed, wet woodland, acid grassland and heath (on blown sands), including channel re-braiding and reconnection, open water, hedgerows, ditches.
Within each NCA there are also many complexities, which should be taken into account in the design of restoration schemes eg, the coal measures and magnesian limestone can occur concurrently, such as in Ashfield, leading to complex mosaics of acidic and calcareous habitats. For this reason, even with good guidance for the restoration of biodiversity as described above, it is essential that the details of restoration plans are discussed with local ecological consultees at a pre-application stage, who have the local

knowledge to make informed judgements as to what is most suitable on a site by site basis, within the overarching guidance.

Mineral extraction can provide an opportunity to reconnect rivers to their floodplains and thus to both contribute to biodiversity targets and to sustainable flood management. Connections may take the form of new channels, the installation of pipe-connections, the re-creation of meanders, reduced bank height to encourage overtopping, removal of minor floodbanks through extraction, and re-braiding of smaller watercourses. Most of these measures will also contribute to meeting a variety of WFD objectives (and requirements under the Eel Regulations) and will bring other ecosystem services benefits. DM policies should recognise this potential.

* Incidental mineral extraction

Cases have arisen previously in the County where substantive mineral extraction has been proposed as incidental to other development such as commercial fish ponds, or creation of a marina etc. NWT welcome the recognition that this requires a robust DM policy to control this type of development.

* Mineral exploration
Mineral exploration can cover large areas and may have cumulative impacts, and should be subject to robust assessment for its likely effects on habitats and species.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries about the above or if I can provide more information. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the MPA in the development of this important Plan.
Yours sincerely,



Janice Bradley C.Env, MCIEEM Head of Conservation

cc. Nick Crouch, NCC

enc. Living Landscapes Map

Setting the overall context for the Plan

- An explanation of why the plan covers 19 years, compared to the current plan which covered 9 years and the previous draft which covered 15 years? This exaggerates the need for new sites to be included in the plan.


Q1 Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

- Nottinghamshire's Spatial Portrait (Plan 1, Page 10) is out of date. For example, the extent of the greenbelt needs updating to include new developments, such as those South of West Bridgford either side of Melton Road up to the Ring Road.


Q2 Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

- Plan 2 (page 12) incorrectly shows an active mineral development East of Newark on Trent - there is no active mineral site at Coddington.
- Less sand and gravel will be required in the future as the construction industry continues to develop modular buildings replacing traditional bricks and mortar. The UK Government supports the use of modern modular construction methods in the White Paper "Fixing our broken housing market" (Department for Communities and Local Government, February 2017).
- The CPC supports the environmental principles of the vision, but with grave concerns about sustainable transport due to inadequate road infrastructure in the Newark area, particularly in the vicinity of the A1 / A46 / A17 junctions which already suffers from significant congestion, leading to accidents and increased transport costs for businesses.


Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

- CPC strongly supports points 3 and 4, to minimise the adverse impacts on Nottinghamshire's communities and to ensure that all worked out quarries are restored to the highest standard.

Q4 Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.

- There is an arithmetical error in the figures shown in table 2 (page 17). The predicted shortfall of sand and gravel should be 14.8 million tonnes, not 17.8.
- CPC does not accept that this is the most suitable methodology, bearing in mind the fluctuations in sand and gravel production over the last 10 years, indicating a continuing demand of around 1.5 million tonnes - Figure 1, Page 16.
- The use of recycled and secondary aggregates is likely to increase in the future, given the trend shown in Figure 1, Page 16.


Q5 Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

- The methodology should vary between mineral types where changes in future demand patterns can be forecast, for example due to changes in technology or methods of construction that are specific to different aggregates.


Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?

- Yes, existing quarries should be extended first, with restoration work a condition of planning.
- Extensions to existing quarries are supported where practicable and there is no adverse environmental impact.


Q7 Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?

- No. CPC agrees with a criteria-based policy as a standard reference tool.



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?

- Plan 3 (page 22) of the geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries needs clarification as the grey cross-hatch shaded areas have not been included in the key.
- It is more important to consider (on a criteria basis) the impact on infrastructure and congestion.

Q9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

- No, this should be based on the sustainability assessment of proposed sites.



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?
- The priority is for adequate infrastructure and sustainable transport. Distance from markets is less important than the local impact on traffic congestion.


Q11 Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
- No



Q12 Is there evidence to suggest that additional crushed rock reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the Plan period? If so please provide this evidence.
- Less gypsum will be available on the closure of coal-fired power stations and will also contribute to further falls in the demand for crushed limestone - Page 25..


Q13 Are you aware of any other issues relating to crushed rock provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

- Development of the process of recycling plastic to tarmac may reduce future demand for crushed rock. (For example: https://www.curbed.com/2017/4/26/15428382/road-potholes- repair-plastic-recycled-macrebur).


Q14 Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

- CPC would welcome a policy on the use of alternative aggregates and a plan for monitoring their success.

Q15 Should the Plan identify a specific replacement quarry (remote extension / new site) to Dorket Head clay pit or should a criteria based policy be developed to ensure an adequate supply of clay can be maintained over the plan period?

- CPC agrees with a criteria-based policy as a standard reference tool. However, site specific considerations should also be identified.
Q16 Is a criteria based policy the most suitable approach to cover the potential for new brick works and associated clay pits?
- CPC agrees with a criteria-based policy as a standard reference tool. However, site specific considerations should also be identified.


Q17 Should the plan seek to identify specific site allocations for gypsum provision or should a criteria based policy be developed to ensure an adequate supply of gypsum can be maintained over the Plan period?
- CPC agrees with a criteria-based policy as a standard reference tool. However, site specific considerations should also be identified.


Q18 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of gypsum that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

- Site specific factors should be considered to ensure sustainability objectives are met.



Q19 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Silica Sand that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

- No



Q20 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?
- No


Q21 Is there evidence to suggest that additional building stone reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the plan period? If so please provide this evidence.

- No

Q22 Are you aware of any other issues relating to building stone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

- No



Q23 Are you aware of any issues relating to coal extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
- No



Q24 Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

- No



Q25 Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

- Must include consideration of the adequacy of immediate and wider infrastructure to cope with existing and future traffic levels. Newark area already has major congestion issues, the slightest increase in traffic will have a major impact.
- Development in the use of recycled construction materials should be encouraged through appropriate policies.


Q26 Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

- No

Thank you for your notification received on the 1 November 2017 in respect of the above consultation.

The current Issues and Options Consultation is an early stage in the Local Plan process and asks a series of questions. The Coal Authority has the following comments to make on the current consultation and questions asked:

Q1. No specific comments to make.

Q2. The Coal Authority is pleased to see that the draft vision identifies the importance of mineral reserves and the need to safeguard them against inappropriate development.

Q3. The Coal Authority is pleased to see restoration and safeguarding of minerals identified as key strategic issues.

Q4/Q5. No specific comments to make. Q6/Q7. No specific comments to make. Q8/Q9/Q10. No specific comments to make. Q11. No specific comments to make.
Q12/Q13. No specific comments to make. Q14. No specific comments to make.

Q15/Q16. No specific comments to make. Q17/Q18. No specific comments to make. Q19. No specific comments to make.
Q20. No specific comments to make. Q21/Q22. No specific comments to make.
Q23. The Coal Authority agrees that the use of a criteria based policy to assess any proposals for energy minerals is appropriate.

The Coal Authority supports the approach to coal recovery from tip washing and colliery lagoons, which can provide a useful source of coal and can help to reduce the scale and impact of historic mineral waste. It can, at times, also be a useful method of removing mining legacy instability in some tips and/or allowing them to be re-engineered into less artificial landforms.

We would hope that this policy will be flexible enough to cater for small scale prior extraction surface coal proposals, most of which are likely to occur in existing urban areas, as well as more major stand-alone surface coal extraction. This type of prior extraction often takes place to address historic mining legacy as the removal of remaining surface coal deposits can be more economically viable than hard engineering solutions such as grout fill.

Q24. The Coal Authority supports the inclusion of a criteria based hydrocarbons policy within the Local Plan. We also support the inclusion of a plan which identifies the PEDL areas.

Q25. No specific comments to make.

Q26. The Coal Authority is pleased to see the identification of surface coal resource within the list of Nottinghamshire's eight distinct mineral resources.

It is not clear from Plan 7 - Minerals safeguarding in Nottinghamshire- if the whole of the county boundary is designated as the mineral safeguarding area or just the coloured areas, which appear to identify areas where minerals are present.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss any of the above comments. Regards
Melanie Lindsley
Melanie Lindsley BA (Hons), DipEH, DipURP, MA, PGCertUD, PGCertSP, MRTPI
Team Leader - Planning Liaison

Question 1: Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?
1. We believe this is a succinct and useful introduction to the county. However, we would like you to say more about planned and expected development that might have implications for the future demand and supply of minerals, such as planned rates of housing growth, employment growth and the implications of HS2. For example, we know that HS2a (western corridor) will require the supply of 3 Million tonnes of concrete along its length. We do not at present know the demand for the planned eastern branch (HS2b) but we think you should mention the huge potential for increases in demand even if not all of this comes from Nottinghamshire, since it is likely to distort supply patterns for many miles around when under construction.


Question 2: Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?
1. You should change the term 'mineral reserves' in the paragraph on safeguarding to 'mineral resources' in line with BGS guidance and national policy.

2. You should also include mineral infrastructure in the safeguarding regime in accordance with national policy.

3. We believe the vision should be stronger about meeting the growth needs of the community;
i.e. providing a steady and adequate supply of minerals to meet objectively assessed development needs, and then say you will also make an appropriate contribution to wider local and national needs.

Question 3: Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?
1. We broadly agree with the key strategic issues as proposed.



Question 4: Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.
Question 5: Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

1. National policy says that forecasts of demand should be based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options. National practice guidance says that forecasts must not be based solely on the 10 year rolling average. It is essential, especially now that we have come out of the recession, for the County Council to use this other relevant information. We are aware that the Council's change of approach is politically motivated, but it is not sound, and it is not best practice.

2. A number of things have distorted the traditional relationship between development in Nottinghamshire and sand and gravel supplies. You allude to the effects of the recession and to short term commercial decisions made by producers, which has resulted in large export volumes to Doncaster and large import volumes from Lincolnshire, and to quarries being mothballed as producers adapted to vastly difficult market conditions. This does not represent a long term sustainable supply pattern and should not be used as a straightjacket for future supply from the county, which still is the most important source of high quality sand and gravel in the region.

3. Companies have only recently had the capacity to recapitalise mothballed sites, and to look for replacements for others which had become exhausted, which takes a long time to come to fruition, and is not yet reflected in the sales figures. There is already strong evidence of industry interest in the county returning to the county, indicated by the numbers of new sites proposed for the last Local Plan process. It would be a profound mistake for the County Council to fossilise the current abnormal conditions which if not corrected will undoubtedly

lead to future underprovision of mineral contrary to the declared intentions of your draft vision and objectives, not to say national policy.

4. We commented on the failure to consider other relevant information as required by NPPF in our comment to the draft LAA in August 2017, which does not seem to have been heeded in this consultation document.


5. The LAA is indicating an annual housing completion rate of 4,574. As a reality check, we can compare the forecast with the last time 4,574 dwellings were completed which was in 2005 when 4,842 dwellings were completed. The extraction rate of sand and gravel in that year was 3.08 Mt. This would seem to suggest that the LAA 10 year rolling average of only
1.7 Mtpa is inadequate. This does not consider any of the infrastructure projects indicated in our response to question 1.
6. On this basis, the MPA considers that the County Council should plan for future sand and gravel demand of 3.0Mtpa for the plan period. By reference to your Table 2 this means that over the plan period (19 years) the requirement for sand and gravel will be 57 Mt. Deducting existing permitted reserves results in a shortfall to be proved by the Local Plan of 39.5 Mt. This means finding an additional 21.7 Mt than you have assumed.




Question 6: Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?
Question 7: Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?

1. National policy makes no reference to a preference of extensions over new sites. National practice guidance recognises the advantages and disadvantages of extensions over new sites, but stresses that each case must be decided on its merits. For these reasons we do not consider that there should be a policy preference of one type of proposal over the other, and whilst a majority of proposals will be extensions, our members are confident that they can successfully argue the merits of their sites whatever category they fall into. So we consider that the Local Plan should be neutral over the issue as the best reflection of national policy and guidance.

Question 8: 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?
Question 9: Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others? Question 10: 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?

1. We consider that if resources allow, it is important to maintain a spread of workings in the areas mentioned. However, we are aware that future working in the Idle valley will be limited as resources decline. Clearly, the nearer one can get to market the more sustainable the aggregate resource is, so locating nearer to Nottingham also has SD advantages. The Newark area possesses the best resources for the future as they are more abundant and suffer from fewer strategic constraints. However, there are accessibility issues that may need to be overcome and it would greatly assist the industry in its future planning and investment decisions, to know what the views of the mpa are on this.

2. On this basis, we do not consider that one area should be prioritised over another.

3. We leave any economics of barge transport for our members to comment on individually. These facilities are very expensive to install and run, only apply to sites with easy access to the riverside, and require substantial investment at the receiving end as for rail depots. Our view is that whilst there are clear advantages to this form of transport, it should not from the basis of any judgment on the acceptability of proposals in isolation. Road transport of mineral will continue to predominate for the foreseeable future.




Question: 11 Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We have already answered this in relation to questions 4 & 5 above.


Q12 Is there evidence to suggest that additional crushed rock reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the Plan period? If so please provide this evidence.

Q13 Are you aware of any other issues relating to crushed rock provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. Demand for crushed rock is increasing and has returned to pre-recession levels across the country. We cannot comment on the reason why the site mentioned is not operational, neither do we have any evidence that more rock is required. However, no doubt following your call for sites, evidence may come to light of further need, and it would be up to any promoters of other sites to justify that.

Question 14: Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. The role of recycling has in the industry's view reached a level where supplies will rise and fall with the level of construction activity. In its paper on Long-Term Aggregates Demand & Supply Scenarios 2016-30, the Mineral Products Association (MPA) said "All supply scenarios described in this paper assume that recycled and secondary aggregates supplies grow in line with construction trends, not faster. The view is that the potential for recycling has already reached a high level, and that if further improvements are possible, these are expected to remain incremental in volume terms."

Question: 19 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Silica Sand that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We agree that a criteria based approach to policy is the best solution for this important industrial mineral given it is national policy that a stock of permitted reserves of at least 10 years is required to support the level of actual and proposed investment. However, if further sites are promoted in the call for sites we would expect the County Council to take a sympathetic approach to need assuming environmental impact was acceptable.


Question 20: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. Clearly, the importance of this industrial mineral is recognised by the County Council and we have nothing further to add to the approach we have advocated for silica sand, except to say that since dolomite is a refractory product, it makes sense to treat it in similar terms to

cement and allow for a minimum stock of permitted reserves of at least 15 years to reflect the higher levels of investment involved.

Question 21: Is there evidence to suggest that additional building stone reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the plan period? If so please provide this evidence.
Question 22: Are you aware of any other issues relating to building stone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We agree that a criteria based approach to this mineral is justified because of its special qualities. In general, production of dimension stone is rising in the UK, not only for the repair of historic buildings and structures, but also for new-build projects. Although the industry has traditionally been small scale there are an increasing number of larger producers (most of whom are now MPA members) and we consider that restricting sites to being small, or for a local market or for only repair work, is not justified. NPPF policy does not restrict the development of dimension stone production; the description of the industry as small scale is meant to reflect its historic role and impact, but not its future development, for which the MPA considers there should be no policy restriction. The industry believes individual proposal should be treated on their merits in accordance with national policy and guidance.

Question 25: Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

1. We agree that the list of management policy areas is comprehensive, and we would ask that in formulating local policies, you do not merely repeat national policy, and that if you cannot improve upon the national approach then the Local Plan should defer to the wording of NPPF.

Question 26: Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. The summary of issues for mineral and infrastructure safeguarding is comprehensive and we would encourage you to closely follow the advice of the BGS in this matter, not only in respect of prior extraction, but also in respect of the equally important and often ignored, issue of sterilisation by proximity.
M E North 11/01/18

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan: Issues and Options consultation

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation. Our two Councils, along with other relevant authorities, have and will continue to work together regarding strategic and cross boundary issues in order to meet the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.

For questions 2 and 3 respectively, the Council supports the draft vision and strategic issues set out.

An outcome of previous engagement was the agreement in 2013 of a joint minerals position statement between Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council.

The joint position statement recognised that Nottinghamshire (a net exporter of sand and gravel) contributes (in the short term) toward supplying aggregate mineral to meet the development requirements identified in the Doncaster and Rotherham Local Plans.

It is noted that the Issues and Options consultation estimates a shortfall in sand and gravel provision over the proposed plan period of some 17.8 million tonnes.

The Council has no further detailed comments to make at this stage; however we welcome the opportunity for further engagement and discussion as the plan progresses to consider any cross boundary implications in light of the most recent data and evidence, and to consider the need to update the joint minerals position statement.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION INCLUDING CALL FOR MINERAL SITES

Thank you for allowing us opportunity to comment on the above consultation document. We are making representations on behalf of our client Tarmac Trading Ltd (Tarmac). Tarmac have a number of existing mineral operations, handling and processing infrastructure within the County. Operations include sand and gravel operations, hard rock operations, as well as a cement depot (Barnstone). Tarmac also operate an industrial limestone operation across the County border within Derbyshire. However, there is a wider landholding containing industrial limestone resource to sustain operations longer term contained within Nottinghamshire.

Current Operations include:

* Langford Quarry - Sand and Gravel
* Besthorpe Quarry - Sand and Gravel
* Bestwood Quarry - Sherwood Sandstone
* Girton Quarry - Sand and Gravel (currently inactive)
* Sturton Quarry - Sand and Gravel (implemented but inactive)
* Nether Langwith - Limestone

* Carlton Forest - Sherwood Sandstone (currently inactive)
* Calverton/Burntstump - Sherwood Sandstone
* Cromwell Quarry - River wharf receiving river dredgings

In addition to responding to the Issues and Options document prepared by the Council, Tarmac have prepared a number of submissions in response the Mineral Planning Authorities 'Call for Sites' exercise. Enclosed with this submission are a series of site submissions/promotions based on the Mineral Planning Authority's 'Call for Sites Information' sheet attached to their consultation letter dated 3rd November 2017. A number of these sites have been previously submitted to Local Plan consultations and included within Draft documents as allocations. Sites promoted to this emerging Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan include:

Extensions to existing operations:

* Langford Quarry - South & West Extension (currently subject to a planning Application ref no 3/16/01689/CMA under consideration by the Mineral planning Authority)
* Langford Quarry - North Extension
* Besthorpe Quarry - East Extension (east of Northcroft Lane)
* Bestwood Quarry - North & East Extension (East extension currently subject to a planning Application ref no 7/2017/1491NCC under consideration by the Mineral planning Authority)

Greenfield Operations

* Great North Road - North
* Great North road - South
* Botany Bay
* Newark/Burridge Farm

In addition to the above, Tarmac are seeking their river wharf and mineral processing facilities at Cromwell safeguarded during the plan period to facilitate the unloading and processing of sand and gravel delivered by river barge, in addition to land at Holbeck which contains industrial limestone to serve the nearby Whitwell operations located across the County border within Derbyshire.


Background Evidence - Local Aggregate Assessment

The latest evidence base document concerning mineral demand is contained within the Local Aggregate Assessment published in 2017 (containing 2016 data).

Tarmac are members of the East Midlands Aggregate Working Party, to which they have made previous comments regarding the demand for mineral within Nottinghamshire in response to the draft Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA) published earlier in 2017. Whilst some of the specific comments have been incorporated, Tarmac maintain that the LAA does not give an accurate portrayal of the sand and gravel demand forecast for the Plan period. The LAA would benefit from further explanation/clarification on why Nottinghamshire is showing an overall decline in sales (contrary to the majority of the East Midlands where there has been a general increase in sales). It is Tarmac's view that this decline is a combination of many factors, including:

* the exhaustion of permitted reserves and closure of production capacity without new sites/permissions directly replacing them (particularly in the Idle Valley);
* the transfer of production into neighbouring authority areas (through working at Finningley Quarry moving across the boundary to Doncaster); and
* the continued constrained production from a number of mothballed/inactive reserves due to continuing impacts from the 2008 recession.

The above factors have skewed the available, and importantly, the operational landbank. Table 2 within the LAA shows permitted reserves at sand and gravel quarries in Nottinghamshire. However, the status of some of these sites (i.e they aren't currently in production due to the timescales required for investment) effects the current operational capacity available within the County. Some of those sites (ie Girton Quarry , mothballed since 2009 and Sturton Quarry implemented in 2017) are likely to come into production in the Plan period, but because of geographical position and changed economics of operation it may be in a different context. The predicted operational contribution of those sites is shown in the delivery schedule for those sites operated / promoted by Tarmac. In this regard, it is important to distinguish between operating capacity and demand. Sales data indicates that there is lower level of production but not necessarily that there is a lower demand. This is evidenced by the varying supply picture within Nottinghamshire and how it differs to that of neighbouring Authorities who are experiencing significant increases in sales.

In addition to sales figures indicating a decline in production (influenced by the recession and the above factors), the Mineral Planning Authority should give further consideration to anticipated future demand. It is incorrect to assume that export levels will continue at current/historic rates. The Mineral Planning Authority should review the growth projections and likely demand this will place on Nottinghamshire resources. As we have previously indicated, it is likely that there will be a greater demand during the Plan period from adjoining authorities. Leicestershire has identified a significant shortfall of some 9.53mt of resources to meet current demand over their Plan period (to 2031) as well as significant loss of long established production capacity. The Doncaster and South Rotherham Local Aggregate Assessment 2016 is showing very low sand and gravel average sales over the past 10 years. However, there is a sharp increase in 2015 (presumably linked to production at Finningley moving into Doncaster). However, Finningley is due to close later this year. Whilst the LAA is indicating that they have a sufficient landbank as a result of low average sales, it is identified that the sand and gravel resource available is currently 99% soft sand. The sand and gravel landbank may not therefore be sustained beyond the proposed 17 year plan period for Doncaster or 15 year plan period for Rotherham.

The Mineral Planning Authority should be setting out clear evidence of its' co- operation with adjoining authorities regarding demand and supply scenarios for sand and gravel which are likely to have an impact on supply and demand of sand and gravel from within Nottinghamshire during the Plan period to 2036.

Issues and Options Paper

Section 2 - Setting the overall Context for the Plan

Q1 - Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

Yes. Cross-boundary relationship with neighbouring authorities should be identified considering:

1. cross-boundary mineral supply from Nottinghamshire - South Yorkshire/Leicestershire in light of their identified lack of available sand and gravel resources to meet demand over Plan period

2. Lack of available crushed rock/limestone resource within County therefore heavy reliance on import from adjoining Authorities
3. Availability of infrastructure links - good road network therefore links to market assisting to secure mineral supply
4. Overlap housing/business/infrastructure/employment links with Derbyshire/Leicestershire. No reference to an overlap of mineral supply issues
5. Duty to cooperate in Plan preparation should be referenced
6. Anticipated development needs for housing/employment/infrastructure

Q2 Do you agree with the Draft Vision? Are there other things that we should include?

Generally support Draft Vision. However, 2 main issues. Firstly, as well as the identification of sites/resources to maintain landbanks and support the objectively assessed development needs/demand, the Plan should ensure that there is sufficient operational capacity to maintain the demand in accordance with paragraph 145 of the NPPF. This should include the assessed needs of adjacent Authority areas which may place added pressure on Nottinghamshire resources. Secondly, as well as safeguarding mineral resource, in accordance with the NPPF the Plan should safeguard mineral associated infrastructure.

Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

SI1 and a locational strategy to securing mineral supply is supported. Maintains spread of operations across the County. Maintains security in supply to markets that these serve.

SI2 is supported. However, Plan should identify anticipated demand from adjoining Authorities.

Disagree with SI4 Not always appropriate when balancing needs of

landowner and value of land post restoration. Biodiversity improvements should be sought 'where possible'. Council should adopt more balanced stance regarding restoration of sites considering the three elements of sustainability.

Tarmac support vision for creating landscape-scale biodiversity resources.

SI4- consider opportunities mineral extraction creates for the deposit of inert infill.

Minerals Provision

Q4 Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.

No. National Policy states, forecasts of demand should be based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data, other relevant information and through assessment of all other supply options. We support the MPA in their previous approach which reviewed sales data pre and post- recession to give a greater appreciation of likely anticipated demand in recession and a period of economic growth.

The operational capacity of permitted operations within the County needs consideration to ensure that anticipated demand is met.

A Delivery schedule (as per previous MLP drafts) would be helpful.

The Issues and Options paper states, the decline in Nottinghamshire sales of sand and gravel is a result of the, 'minerals industry focusing on existing quarries outside the County and the lack of investment in new greenfield quarries in Nottinghamshire even though adequate sand and gravel resources remain'. This statement is not substantiated or evidenced.

The Plan should not focus or specify a definitive/maximum amount of mineral provision. The Plan needs to provide flexibility to support additional sites/resources coming forward during the Plan period to meet demand/operational requirements to serve existing/future markets.

Q5 Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

As above, the use of 10 years average does not accurately represent the 'local circumstance'. A decline in sales is not necessarily an indication of decline in demand. Whilst it is one consideration, the fact that the sales/supply picture within Nottinghamshire is so different from the rest of the East Midlands and the national picture indicates that the sales data alone is not a true reflection of current circumstances.

Strategic Approach to New Mineral Development

Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?

There needs to be allowance in the Plan for both extensions and new greenfield sites. The NPPF removed previous planning policy preference for extensions to existing operations. As a result, emerging policy should not give preference to extensions in order to be compliant with national policy. However, as we have previously stated, the Plan should provide flexibility and policy should be supportive in securing extensions to existing operations, this ensures a continuation in supply without sterilising mineral reserves. However, operational capacity constraints still apply (imposed by plant capacity or planning conditions which limit tonnages/production) which can limit the amount of resource available to meet demand and therefore there may be a requirement for green field sites in addition to extensions. It is considered that a more sustainable strategy would be a locational strategy which shows allocations and preferred areas of working for new sites in each of the three main areas for sand and gravel working (Trent Valley, north of Newark and the Idle Valley) to ensure there are sufficient operations in place to meet demand, particularly relevant where there is evidence of sand and gravel resource, reserve and production capacity decline in adjoining authority areas.

Sand and gravel provision

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 market.

It is considered that a geographical spread of sand and gravel operations is a sustainable strategy and Tarmac support this approach. These areas have historical supply markets/area demand which has not changed - i.e major growth areas which will still be providing housing, employment, infrastructure etc remain. In addition, a

number of operations spread within a locality will also ensure the continuity/maintenance of supply in the event of operational constraint or in the event of a site having to shut down/cease operating.

It is not clear why specific reference is made to the Planning Application at Barton in Fabis and the contribution this could make to future mineral supply? Current undetermined Applications at Langford and Bestwood are not referred to in the same context. It is considered that the Plan should provide factual information only at this stage, and the reference to Barton in Fabis specifically appears to give it a favourable status which is not appropriate in this context.

Plan 3 isn't very informative. It would benefit from major trunk roads being identified, major towns/growth areas labelling, and the Idle Valley showing.

Q9. Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

The Locational strategy should be heavily influenced/focussed on known markets and by access to market and ease of access to the local highway network to transport mineral within and where necessary outside of the County.

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.

The difference between long distance barging to market and short distance/shuttle barging to processing plant requires a distinction.

Long Distance Barging to Market

It has not in recent years been economical to transport mineral by barge. The costs of loading / unloading and transportation are often significantly greater than conventional distribution to market by road, and is significantly less flexible to meet market demand. It is unlikely that sand and gravel operations will be developed based on barge transportation alone.

River barge transportation of sand and gravel from Besthorpe Quarry ceased in August 2013 as supply to the West Yorkshire market from North Yorkshire (including rail fed crushed rock) became more economic. The position may change in the medium to long term as supply scenarios change over time. Tarmac have therefore

retained the over wharf facility at Besthorpe in a mothballed state rather than removing the wharf facility altogether.

Short distance shuttle barging (to processing plant)

The costs of loading and unloading and provision of handling/ processing facilities significantly add to operating costs and shuttle barging over short distances are unlikely to be economic against traditional land based operations.

There may be opportunities for a shuttle barge transportation system to be adopted for working some sand and gravel resources where inadequate road access exists. Such a system may enable otherwise constrained mineral resources to be worked, but the viability does depend heavily on suitable mineral handling and processing facilities being available at the receiving end (particularly facilities for mineral processing , washing and silt disposal).

Sherwood Sandstone

Q11. Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

The LAA recognises the high level of export to markets outside the County due to limited resources elsewhere. As per comments on sand and gravel, there is a need where resource exists to maintain production and operating capacity to meet demand. The Plan should identify appropriate extensions to existing operations or new sites to meet this demand. Identified demand based on sales is a minimum requirement of the Plan and it is considered there needs to be flexibility built into the Plan to allow sites to come forward. The plan should address anticipated demand from outside of the County.

The Plan should recognise the unique properties of the sand as well as markets. Colour variances as well as properties of the sand are also important factors and therefore additional reserves (as allocations or new sites) should not solely be based upon estimated demand based on sales figures.

Crushed Rock

The Plan should update the current position on Nether Langwith as Tarmac has obtained planning permission to extend the timescales for working and restoration.


It is likely that there is a wider demand for crushed rock within the County than that met by Nether Langwith. Crushed rock requirements are likely to be met from imports to meet the demand within the south of the County to minimise the distance crushed rock will need to travel.

Alternative Aggregates

Q14. Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the minerals Local Plan review?

Support for the MPA in seeking the use of alternative aggregates and the appreciation that there are limits on how far alternatives can substitute primary aggregate. It is considered whilst support for alternative aggregate should be encouraged in the Plan, the contribution should be viewed as a 'bonus' over and above the required amount of primary aggregate. This is reflective of the NPPF (para
143) which states that local Plans should take account of the, 'contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste can make'. The reference made by the MPA to the reduction in ash materials from coal fired power stations is also likely to increase the demand for primary aggregate over the Plan period to address this specific resource shortfall. The approach to recycled aggregates reflects the Mineral Products Association Long Tern Aggregates Demand and Supply Scenarios Paper which indicates that the potential for recycling has reached an optimum level (approximately 28-30% volume).

Industrial Dolomite Provision

Q20. Are you aware if any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

Reserves of industrial dolomite are of international importance. Whilst additional resource areas do not need to be identified as an allocation, the resource within Nottinghamshire should be identified within the Plan and recognised as a proven resource to be safeguarded.

Development Management Policies

Q25. Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?


Yes agree that it covers all areas.


Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas

Q26 Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

It is considered that the Minerals Plan should define more specific Mineral Consultation Areas. The proposed approach to define consultation areas on the same scale as safeguarding areas could mean that large amounts of development will be caught within an MSA/MCA which would be onerous on developers having to potentially submit minerals assessments and the MPA in assessing the potential for impact of development on mineral resource/mineral associated infrastructure. This is contrary to the objectives of the NPPF paragraph 143. A criteria based approach to MCA's would be a more appropriate strategy. In addition Plan 7 would benefit from clearer distinction between areas of safeguarding. It is not clear where the alluvial sand and gravel is located.

As well as safeguarding mineral associated infrastructure, rail heads should be expanded to include rail heads at coal fired power stations. A wharf facility at Colwick is specifically referenced for safeguarding. Tarmac have existing wharf facilities which should also be referenced if this is the approach to be adopted by the MPA.

The importance of Local Plan's (District and Borough Council) in understanding and appreciating the role of safeguarding and defining areas/sites within Local Development Plan Documents should be explained within the Mineral Plan. The Planning system is a tiered system with the policies contained within the Mineral Plan and Local plan pertinent to the consideration of Planning Applications at County and District level. The MPA has an important role in ensuring mineral safeguarding is not perceived as just a County function but guiding and supporting Local Authorities to appreciate they also have a role to play in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

Proposed SA Objectives


As per comments on the Issues and Options Paper, Objective 2 should reflect the NPPF and seek to protect and enhance biodiversity 'where possible' as opposed to at all levels. The NPPF recognises that biodiversity should be protected, enhanced and where necessary any impact mitigated against as opposed to being categorical that all development needs to provide ecological enhancement.

General Comments

As we have stated as part of previous consultation responses on other MLP Drafts, the weighting of each of the Sustainability Appraisal objectives should be explained and how these will be used to assess the Plan policies and any sites promoted for allocation. Currently the SA Objectives are heavily weighted to potential environmental effect. However, economic and social facets of sustainability are critical elements relating to minerals development - i.e maintaining supply, access and proximity to market, beneficial restoration objectives etc. Attention is drawn to the NPPF and that 'minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth' (paragraph 142). As well as providing an 'adequate' amount, the SA has failed to take account of the need to plan for a 'steady and adequate' supply of aggregate (paragraph 145). There is a requirement for the MPA to recognise that as well as ensuring they have a sufficient land bank of resource that the Plan maintains aggregate provision across the whole Plan period - comments above on operational capacity are particularly pertinent to this.

Table 2 - Sustainability issues

Table 2 identifies the economy and employment as only having a low/moderate significance to the Plan. It is considered this is understated and refer to paragraph 142 of the NPPF, 'minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life'. This significance should be amended.

Table 4

Objective 1 should include operational capacity as a proposed indicator in assessing whether adequate provision is being made to meet local and national mineral demand.





I trust that the above comments are helpful. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss any of the points raised in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Yours sincerely,



Jenna Conway
Heaton Planning Limited

Dear Sir/Madam

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Consultation 2017 - Issues and Options

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Issues and Options consultation for the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan. We welcome the early engagement and our response to the questions relevant to ourselves, as well as general comments relating to flood risk and ground water are as follows:

Q2: Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

We welcome the visions aim that all mineral working will protect the County's environmental assets. We would recommend that mention of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is included to ensure that any waterbodies are protected or enhanced to achieve good status. Also all mineral working development in flood zones 2 and 3 should reduce the flood risk to the site and others in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

We welcome point 4 and the plan to have Biodiversity led restoration. We would suggest that the following is added in 'quarries are restored and enhanced to the highest standard'.

In conjunction with our comments to Q2, we would suggest that an additional objective is added, titled '6. Provide Environmental and Flood Risk improvements' with a focus on the requirements of future development to reduce flood risk to the site and others for developments in flood zones 2 and 3, as well as protecting and enhancing the waterbodies to a good status where possible in line with WFD.

Q11 Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Abstractions for the purpose of dewatering mines, quarries or engineering excavations are currently exempt from the need for an abstraction licence under the Water Resources Act 1991. However, changes under the Water Act 2003 and draft regulations that have been laid in parliament before coming into force from 1st January 2018 will

Environment Agency
Trent Side North, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 5FA. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency
Cont/d..

bring these abstractions into regulation under the abstraction licensing system. Once the regulations become live on 1st January 2018 a licence will be required for the majority of dewatering activities. There will be a two year application window until December 2019 for applications for existing dewatering operations to be made, to be followed by a three year determination period (from January 2020) for the Agency to process them. If the dewatering operations will take commence after 1st January 2018 the applicant would need to consult us at the earliest opportunity to discuss licensing requirements.

Any new licence would be dependent on whether resources are available as set out in the abstraction licensing strategy. Nottinghamshire County Council and potential applicants should be aware that the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer located within Nottinghamshire County boundary is closed to further consumptive abstraction licences. This closer to the application of consumptive abstraction licences is to protect the ground and surface water environment. A copy of the relevant Abstraction Licensing Strategies the Lower Trent and Erewash and Idle and Torne can be found on Gov.uk following the links below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291403/LI T_3309_b5e317.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291404/LI T_5355_d453a5.pdf


Q25 Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed policies. We would suggest that the currently proposed policy topic 'Water resources and flood risk' is split into 2 policies, one of flood risk, and the other of water resources. This will ensure each policy is focused on its particular environmental impact.

We would also suggest an additional policy to look at the impacts of water quality, in line with WFD requirements.

We would also suggest that the policy topic of Restoration, afteruse and aftercare is amended to include contaiminated land as this is seen as a key environmental issue within the PPG (Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 27-013-20140306)

Flood Risk General Comments
With regards to flood risk, the Environment Agency will provide comments on a site-by- site basis once the plan has progressed to the site allocations stage. There may be opportunities to improve flood risk management at specific sites.
There are particular flood risk concerns with sand and gravel sites, as they tend to be located in the floodplain. The following points are applicable to sand and gravel sites within the floodplain, for example the Trent Valley:
* There should generally be no raising of levels on a temporary or permanent basis.
* Piles of overburden/soil should be moved and stored, where possible, out of the floodplain.
* Any remaining bunds should be positioned in parallel with the flow direction, to maintain flow routes through the floodplain. Bunds should also be broken into sections rather than a continuous line. If the bunds are being left for any
Cont/d.. 2

substantial length of time they should be grassed over to protect them from being washed downstream during a flood. It will be necessary to demonstrate through flood risk modelling that any temporary storage mounds do not increase flood risk to others.
* There should be no raised haul roads or bunds either side of the roads.
* Any conveyors should be raised above the 1% AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability) flood to prevent obstructions on the floodplain which could collect debris during a flood event.
* Office/Plant should be located outside of the floodplain.
* When the site is restored the potential to improve flood risk management inthe area shall be examined by the operator/developer. Ground levels should not be raised or restored in a manner that alters the flood regime to the detriment of others.
* There should be no excavations within 45 metres of a main river, or flood defence, particularly on the outside of meanders which is a zone of active erosion.
* Flood defences should not be damaged or compromised, including minor defences maintained by Risk Management Authorities (not the EA) or members of the public.
* The Idle Valley has problems with siltation, in this location it will be very important that rigorous measures are employed to ensure material is not washed into the river systems.
* With regards to transporting material by barge, this could reduce flood risk by reducing the need for roads and machinery at sand and gravel sites in the floodplain.

Groundwater General Comments
No comments to make on hydrocarbon extraction, all issues seem to be covered adequately.

It should be noted that dewatering activities will be coming into regulation on 1st January 2018 which may affect both existing and new operations.
The link below is to the government response to consultation on changes to water abstraction licensing exemptions in England and Wales: New Authorisations: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/water-abstraction-licensing-changes-to- exemptions-in-england-and-wales


Yours sincerely

Mr Joseph Drewry Planning Advisor

Direct dial 02030 253277
Direct e-mail joe.drewry@environment-agency.gov.uk

Issues and Options Paper

Section 2 - Setting the overall Context for the Plan

Q1 - Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

Yes. It is considered that the cross boundary relationship with neighbouring authorities should be identified taking into account:

1. cross boundary mineral supply from Nottinghamshire - eg to South Yorkshire, and Leicestershire in light of their identified lack of available sand and gravel resources and production capacity to meet demand over the Plan period

2. The lack of available crushed rock/limestone resource within the County and therefore the heavy reliance on import from adjoining Authority areas
3. The availability of infrastructure links - particularly good road network and therefore links to market in assisting to secure mineral supply
4. The overlap of housing, business, infrastructure and employment links with Derbyshire and Leicestershire are identified but there is currently no reference to an overlap of mineral supply issues
5. The relationship with other mineral authorities and duty to cooperate in Plan preparation should be referenced
6. The anticipated development needs for housing, employment and infrastructure provision (including HS2)

Q2 Do you agree with the Draft Vision? Are there other things that we should include?

In general terms we would support the Draft Vision. However, it is considered there are two important issues missing. Firstly, as well as the identification of sites/resources to maintain landbanks and support the objectively assessed development needs/demand, the Plan should ensure that there is sufficient operational capacity to maintain the demand in accordance with paragraph 145 of the NPPF which states, 'Mineral Planning Authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by making provision for the maintenance of landbank.... whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised'. This should include the assessed needs of adjacent Authority areas which may place added pressure on Nottinghamshire resources. Secondly, as well as safeguarding mineral resource, in accordance with the NPPF the Plan should safeguard mineral associated infrastructure.

Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

Key Strategic Issue 1 and a locational strategy to securing mineral supply is supported. This approach maintains the spread of operations across the County and maintains a security in supply to the specific markets that these serve.

The principle of Key Strategic Issue 2 is supported. However, as referred above, the Plan should identify the anticipated demand from adjoining Authority areas.

We do not agree with Strategic Issue 4 and a 'Biodiversity led restoration' approach to all mineral operations. This is not always appropriate when balancing the needs of

the landowner and long term economic value of land post restoration. Biodiversity improvements should be sought 'where possible'. The Council's vision should adopt a more balanced stance in respect of the restoration of mineral sites taking account of the three elements of sustainability set out in the NPPF (e.g. economic, social and environmental). Tarmac do however support the vision for creating landscape-scale biodiversity resources as part of stakeholder co-ordinated initiatives (ie The RSPB Bigger Better Vision for the Trent Valley area north of Newark). This should be referred to in the strategy.

Strategic Issue 4 should also consider the opportunities which mineral extraction creates for the deposit of inert infill as part of delivering agricultural restoration in helping to meet the need for inert waste disposal in Nottinghamshire.

Minerals Provision

Q4 Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.

No it is not considered that the 10 years average sales figures are the most suitable methodology for forecasting aggregate demand. National Policy states, forecasts of demand should be based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data, other relevant information and through assessment of all other supply options. The 10 years average sales are heavily influenced by the impact of the recession. In addition, the movement of production at Finningley outside the County boundary has effectively skewed the perceived sales/demand. This is particularly apparent given the picture across the East Midlands which in all other cases have seen increases in sales figures. Whilst, recycled and secondary aggregate has a role to play in meeting demand in some circumstances it cannot be relied upon for ensuring continuity in supply. In addition given the location of the County it is unlikely that demand can be met from other sources (for example marine). In light of this, the other relevant local information is particularly important in forecasting future demand in the County. We support the MPA in their previous approach which reviewed sales data pre and post- recession to give a greater appreciation of likely anticipated demand in recession and a period of economic growth.

As we have referred to above, the operational capacity of permitted operations within the County needs consideration to ensure that anticipated demand is met. A

decline in sales is not necessarily an indication of a decline in demand. Production moving outside of the County will impact upon perceived sales figures as well as sites/resource not being replaced when exhausted.

A Delivery schedule (as per previous MLP drafts) would be helpful in ensuring that sites are allocated to cover the whole Plan period. Although the landbank is sufficient at the start of the Plan period, sites will become exhausted during the Plan period and provision should be made for replacements. Tarmac have produced their own delivery schedule (enclosed with this submission) to illustrate the timescales for known reserves becoming available during the Plan period.

The Issues and Options paper states, the decline in Nottinghamshire sales of sand and gravel is a result of the, 'minerals industry focusing on existing quarries outside the County and the lack of investment in new greenfield quarries in Nottinghamshire even though adequate sand and gravel resources remain'. This statement is not substantiated or evidenced. The 9 years of public consultation (between 2008 and 2017) eventually leading to the withdrawn Nottinghamshire Draft Plan has not created a positive or stable platform for industry investment. There are numerous existing operations with logical and feasible extensions, a number of which have previously been promoted to the previous Mineral Local Plan process as well as new greenfield reserves which have been subject to Scoping Requests with the Mineral Planning Authority. Notwithstanding this, significant investment (both financial and time) is required in pre-planning processes in obtaining baseline environmental assessment work to support a planning application. The Mineral industry is only recently seeing increases in sales post-recession which provides the security/assurance in making significant financial investment to existing and new operations. In addition, it is the market factors that dictate where operations would be best placed to serve the local needs.

The Plan should not focus or specify a definitive/maximum amount of mineral provision. The sales data is an indication of demand and should not be perceived as a maximum requirement. The Plan needs to provide flexibility to support additional sites/resources coming forward during the Plan period to meet demand/operational requirements to serve existing/future markets.

Q5 Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

As above, the use of 10 years average does not accurately represent the 'local circumstance'. A decline in sales is not necessarily an indication of decline in demand. Whilst it is one consideration, the fact that the sales/supply picture within Nottinghamshire is so different from the rest of the East Midlands and the national picture indicates that the sales data alone is not a true reflection of current circumstances.

Strategic Approach to New Mineral Development

Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?

There needs to be allowance in the Plan for both extensions and new greenfield sites. The NPPF removed previous planning policy preference for extensions to existing operations. As a result, emerging policy should not give preference to extensions in order to be compliant with national policy. However, as we have previously stated, the Plan should provide flexibility and policy should be supportive in securing extensions to existing operations, this ensures a continuation in supply without sterilising mineral reserves. However, operational capacity constraints still apply (imposed by plant capacity or planning conditions which limit tonnages/production) which can limit the amount of resource available to meet demand and therefore there may be a requirement for green field sites in addition to extensions. It is considered that a more sustainable strategy would be a locational strategy which shows allocations and preferred areas of working for new sites in each of the three main areas for sand and gravel working (Trent Valley, north of Newark and the Idle Valley) to ensure there are sufficient operations in place to meet demand, particularly relevant where there is evidence of sand and gravel resource, reserve and production capacity decline in adjoining authority areas.

Sand and gravel provision

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 market.

It is considered that a geographical spread of sand and gravel operations is a sustainable strategy and Tarmac support this approach. These areas have historical supply markets/area demand which has not changed - i.e major growth areas which will still be providing housing, employment, infrastructure etc remain. In addition, a

number of operations spread within a locality will also ensure the continuity/maintenance of supply in the event of operational constraint or in the event of a site having to shut down/cease operating.

It is not clear why specific reference is made to the Planning Application at Barton in Fabis and the contribution this could make to future mineral supply? Current undetermined Applications at Langford and Bestwood are not referred to in the same context. It is considered that the Plan should provide factual information only at this stage, and the reference to Barton in Fabis specifically appears to give it a favourable status which is not appropriate in this context.

Plan 3 isn't very informative. It would benefit from major trunk roads being identified, major towns/growth areas labelling, and the Idle Valley showing.

Q9. Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

The Locational strategy should be heavily influenced/focussed on known markets and by access to market and ease of access to the local highway network to transport mineral within and where necessary outside of the County.

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.

The difference between long distance barging to market and short distance/shuttle barging to processing plant requires a distinction.

Long Distance Barging to Market

It has not in recent years been economical to transport mineral by barge. The costs of loading / unloading and transportation are often significantly greater than conventional distribution to market by road, and is significantly less flexible to meet market demand. It is unlikely that sand and gravel operations will be developed based on barge transportation alone.

River barge transportation of sand and gravel from Besthorpe Quarry ceased in August 2013 as supply to the West Yorkshire market from North Yorkshire (including rail fed crushed rock) became more economic. The position may change in the medium to long term as supply scenarios change over time. Tarmac have therefore

retained the over wharf facility at Besthorpe in a mothballed state rather than removing the wharf facility altogether.

Short distance shuttle barging (to processing plant)

The costs of loading and unloading and provision of handling/ processing facilities significantly add to operating costs and shuttle barging over short distances are unlikely to be economic against traditional land based operations.

There may be opportunities for a shuttle barge transportation system to be adopted for working some sand and gravel resources where inadequate road access exists. Such a system may enable otherwise constrained mineral resources to be worked, but the viability does depend heavily on suitable mineral handling and processing facilities being available at the receiving end (particularly facilities for mineral processing , washing and silt disposal).

Sherwood Sandstone

Q11. Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

The LAA recognises the high level of export to markets outside the County due to limited resources elsewhere. As per comments on sand and gravel, there is a need where resource exists to maintain production and operating capacity to meet demand. The Plan should identify appropriate extensions to existing operations or new sites to meet this demand. Identified demand based on sales is a minimum requirement of the Plan and it is considered there needs to be flexibility built into the Plan to allow sites to come forward. The plan should address anticipated demand from outside of the County.

The Plan should recognise the unique properties of the sand as well as markets. Colour variances as well as properties of the sand are also important factors and therefore additional reserves (as allocations or new sites) should not solely be based upon estimated demand based on sales figures.

Crushed Rock

The Plan should update the current position on Nether Langwith as Tarmac has obtained planning permission to extend the timescales for working and restoration.


It is likely that there is a wider demand for crushed rock within the County than that met by Nether Langwith. Crushed rock requirements are likely to be met from imports to meet the demand within the south of the County to minimise the distance crushed rock will need to travel.

Alternative Aggregates

Q14. Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the minerals Local Plan review?

Support for the MPA in seeking the use of alternative aggregates and the appreciation that there are limits on how far alternatives can substitute primary aggregate. It is considered whilst support for alternative aggregate should be encouraged in the Plan, the contribution should be viewed as a 'bonus' over and above the required amount of primary aggregate. This is reflective of the NPPF (para
143) which states that local Plans should take account of the, 'contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste can make'. The reference made by the MPA to the reduction in ash materials from coal fired power stations is also likely to increase the demand for primary aggregate over the Plan period to address this specific resource shortfall. The approach to recycled aggregates reflects the Mineral Products Association Long Tern Aggregates Demand and Supply Scenarios Paper which indicates that the potential for recycling has reached an optimum level (approximately 28-30% volume).

Industrial Dolomite Provision

Q20. Are you aware if any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

Reserves of industrial dolomite are of international importance. Whilst additional resource areas do not need to be identified as an allocation, the resource within Nottinghamshire should be identified within the Plan and recognised as a proven resource to be safeguarded.

Development Management Policies

Q25. Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?


Yes agree that it covers all areas.


Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas

Q26 Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

It is considered that the Minerals Plan should define more specific Mineral Consultation Areas. The proposed approach to define consultation areas on the same scale as safeguarding areas could mean that large amounts of development will be caught within an MSA/MCA which would be onerous on developers having to potentially submit minerals assessments and the MPA in assessing the potential for impact of development on mineral resource/mineral associated infrastructure. This is contrary to the objectives of the NPPF paragraph 143. A criteria based approach to MCA's would be a more appropriate strategy. In addition Plan 7 would benefit from clearer distinction between areas of safeguarding. It is not clear where the alluvial sand and gravel is located.

As well as safeguarding mineral associated infrastructure, rail heads should be expanded to include rail heads at coal fired power stations. A wharf facility at Colwick is specifically referenced for safeguarding. Tarmac have existing wharf facilities which should also be referenced if this is the approach to be adopted by the MPA.

The importance of Local Plan's (District and Borough Council) in understanding and appreciating the role of safeguarding and defining areas/sites within Local Development Plan Documents should be explained within the Mineral Plan. The Planning system is a tiered system with the policies contained within the Mineral Plan and Local plan pertinent to the consideration of Planning Applications at County and District level. The MPA has an important role in ensuring mineral safeguarding is not perceived as just a County function but guiding and supporting Local Authorities to appreciate they also have a role to play in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance.

Question 1: Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?
1. We believe this is a succinct and useful introduction to the county. However, we would like you to say more about planned and expected development that might have implications for the future demand and supply of minerals, such as planned rates of housing growth, employment growth and the implications of HS2. For example, we know that HS2a (western corridor) will require the supply of 3 Million tonnes of concrete along its length. We do not at present know the demand for the planned eastern branch (HS2b) but we think you should mention the huge potential for increases in demand even if not all of this comes from Nottinghamshire, since it is likely to distort supply patterns for many miles around when under construction.


Question 2: Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?
1. You should change the term 'mineral reserves' in the paragraph on safeguarding to 'mineral resources' in line with BGS guidance and national policy.

2. You should also include mineral infrastructure in the safeguarding regime in accordance with national policy.

3. We believe the vision should be stronger about meeting the growth needs of the community;
i.e. providing a steady and adequate supply of minerals to meet objectively assessed development needs, and then say you will also make an appropriate contribution to wider local and national needs.

Question 3: Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?
1. We broadly agree with the key strategic issues as proposed.



Question 4: Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.
Question 5: Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

1. National policy says that forecasts of demand should be based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options. National practice guidance says that forecasts must not be based solely on the 10 year rolling average. It is essential, especially now that we have come out of the recession, for the County Council to use this other relevant information. We are aware that the Council's change of approach is politically motivated, but it is not sound, and it is not best practice.

2. A number of things have distorted the traditional relationship between development in Nottinghamshire and sand and gravel supplies. You allude to the effects of the recession and to short term commercial decisions made by producers, which has resulted in large export volumes to Doncaster and large import volumes from Lincolnshire, and to quarries being mothballed as producers adapted to vastly difficult market conditions. This does not represent a long term sustainable supply pattern and should not be used as a straightjacket for future supply from the county, which still is the most important source of high quality sand and gravel in the region.

3. Companies have only recently had the capacity to recapitalise mothballed sites, and to look for replacements for others which had become exhausted, which takes a long time to come to fruition, and is not yet reflected in the sales figures. There is already strong evidence of industry interest in the county returning to the county, indicated by the numbers of new sites proposed for the last Local Plan process. It would be a profound mistake for the County Council to fossilise the current abnormal conditions which if not corrected will undoubtedly

lead to future underprovision of mineral contrary to the declared intentions of your draft vision and objectives, not to say national policy.

4. We commented on the failure to consider other relevant information as required by NPPF in our comment to the draft LAA in August 2017, which does not seem to have been heeded in this consultation document.


5. The LAA is indicating an annual housing completion rate of 4,574. As a reality check, we can compare the forecast with the last time 4,574 dwellings were completed which was in 2005 when 4,842 dwellings were completed. The extraction rate of sand and gravel in that year was 3.08 Mt. This would seem to suggest that the LAA 10 year rolling average of only
1.7 Mtpa is inadequate. This does not consider any of the infrastructure projects indicated in our response to question 1.
6. On this basis, the MPA considers that the County Council should plan for future sand and gravel demand of 3.0Mtpa for the plan period. By reference to your Table 2 this means that over the plan period (19 years) the requirement for sand and gravel will be 57 Mt. Deducting existing permitted reserves results in a shortfall to be proved by the Local Plan of 39.5 Mt. This means finding an additional 21.7 Mt than you have assumed.




Question 6: Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?
Question 7: Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?

1. National policy makes no reference to a preference of extensions over new sites. National practice guidance recognises the advantages and disadvantages of extensions over new sites, but stresses that each case must be decided on its merits. For these reasons we do not consider that there should be a policy preference of one type of proposal over the other, and whilst a majority of proposals will be extensions, our members are confident that they can successfully argue the merits of their sites whatever category they fall into. So we consider that the Local Plan should be neutral over the issue as the best reflection of national policy and guidance.

Question 8: 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?
Question 9: Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others? Question 10: 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?

1. We consider that if resources allow, it is important to maintain a spread of workings in the areas mentioned. However, we are aware that future working in the Idle valley will be limited as resources decline. Clearly, the nearer one can get to market the more sustainable the aggregate resource is, so locating nearer to Nottingham also has SD advantages. The Newark area possesses the best resources for the future as they are more abundant and suffer from fewer strategic constraints. However, there are accessibility issues that may need to be overcome and it would greatly assist the industry in its future planning and investment decisions, to know what the views of the mpa are on this.

2. On this basis, we do not consider that one area should be prioritised over another.

3. We leave any economics of barge transport for our members to comment on individually. These facilities are very expensive to install and run, only apply to sites with easy access to the riverside, and require substantial investment at the receiving end as for rail depots. Our view is that whilst there are clear advantages to this form of transport, it should not from the basis of any judgment on the acceptability of proposals in isolation. Road transport of mineral will continue to predominate for the foreseeable future.




Question: 11 Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We have already answered this in relation to questions 4 & 5 above.


Q12 Is there evidence to suggest that additional crushed rock reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the Plan period? If so please provide this evidence.

Q13 Are you aware of any other issues relating to crushed rock provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. Demand for crushed rock is increasing and has returned to pre-recession levels across the country. We cannot comment on the reason why the site mentioned is not operational, neither do we have any evidence that more rock is required. However, no doubt following your call for sites, evidence may come to light of further need, and it would be up to any promoters of other sites to justify that.

Question 14: Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. The role of recycling has in the industry's view reached a level where supplies will rise and fall with the level of construction activity. In its paper on Long-Term Aggregates Demand & Supply Scenarios 2016-30, the Mineral Products Association (MPA) said "All supply scenarios described in this paper assume that recycled and secondary aggregates supplies grow in line with construction trends, not faster. The view is that the potential for recycling has already reached a high level, and that if further improvements are possible, these are expected to remain incremental in volume terms."

Question: 19 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Silica Sand that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We agree that a criteria based approach to policy is the best solution for this important industrial mineral given it is national policy that a stock of permitted reserves of at least 10 years is required to support the level of actual and proposed investment. However, if further sites are promoted in the call for sites we would expect the County Council to take a sympathetic approach to need assuming environmental impact was acceptable.


Question 20: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. Clearly, the importance of this industrial mineral is recognised by the County Council and we have nothing further to add to the approach we have advocated for silica sand, except to say that since dolomite is a refractory product, it makes sense to treat it in similar terms to

cement and allow for a minimum stock of permitted reserves of at least 15 years to reflect the higher levels of investment involved.

Question 21: Is there evidence to suggest that additional building stone reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the plan period? If so please provide this evidence.
Question 22: Are you aware of any other issues relating to building stone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We agree that a criteria based approach to this mineral is justified because of its special qualities. In general, production of dimension stone is rising in the UK, not only for the repair of historic buildings and structures, but also for new-build projects. Although the industry has traditionally been small scale there are an increasing number of larger producers (most of whom are now MPA members) and we consider that restricting sites to being small, or for a local market or for only repair work, is not justified. NPPF policy does not restrict the development of dimension stone production; the description of the industry as small scale is meant to reflect its historic role and impact, but not its future development, for which the MPA considers there should be no policy restriction. The industry believes individual proposal should be treated on their merits in accordance with national policy and guidance.

Question 25: Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

1. We agree that the list of management policy areas is comprehensive, and we would ask that in formulating local policies, you do not merely repeat national policy, and that if you cannot improve upon the national approach then the Local Plan should defer to the wording of NPPF.

Question 26: Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. The summary of issues for mineral and infrastructure safeguarding is comprehensive and we would encourage you to closely follow the advice of the BGS in this matter, not only in respect of prior extraction, but also in respect of the equally important and often ignored, issue of sterilisation by proximity.

2. Question 1. Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

2.1. Nottinghamshire has a varied population distribution and it would be helpful to show on Plan 1 the relative sizes of the principal towns and Nottingham City in terms of population size. This would be helpful in understanding where demand for aggregate is likely to arise.

2.2. It would also be useful to show where the boundaries of adjoining Mineral Planning Authorities intersect with the boundary for Nottinghamshire. This information would be helpful in understanding the spatial inter-relationship with the neighboring counties as there is significant interaction between them in respect of mineral production and demand, see later comments.


3. QUESTION 2. Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

3.1. Generally BAL agrees that the draft vision is appropriate. In particular the need to ensure that mineral development is concentrated in locations that offer the greatest level of accessibility to major markets and growth areas.


4. QUESTION 3. Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

4.1. Generally BAL agrees with the strategic issues, in particular securing a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire.


5. QUESTION 4. Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence base to support this approach.

5.1. National Policy in relation to planning for future aggregate demand is to be found in NPPF. For an MLP to be found sound1 it is necessary for it to be
* Positively prepared
* Justified
* Effective
* Consistent with national policy


1 NPPF para 182.


5.2. The assessment of need on which the County are currently embarking is an essential component of this process as follows. For the plan to be positively prepared it must look forward on the basis that proposed development as set out in other plans and proposals will come forward and that need must be met through adequate allocation of resources in the MLP. This requirement must also be met for the MLP to be justified and effective.

5.3. The requirement for the MLP to be consistent with national policy in relation to assessing need and in particular the calculation of an adequate landbank requirement for an MLP can be found in the NPPF as follows2

* Preparing an annual Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA) based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information.
* Ensuring that large landbanks bound up in a very few sites do not stifle competition.

5.4. It is clear from the NPPF that the 10 year rolling average should be a starting point and that other local factors should be taken into account. The NPPF does not detail what local factors should be taken into account but National Planning Practice Guidance gives further advice. The guidance is that relevant local information used should be that which seeks to look ahead rather than just relying on past sales. The guidance goes onto advise that such information may include levels of planned construction and house building in the local area but also " throughout the country" 3

5.5. The Planning Officers Society in conjunction with the Mineral Products Association have also produced useful practical guidance in assessing need and in particular what sort of local information should be used in considering the adequacy of the 10 year rolling average. These include4:-

* Geological resources being exhausted
* Trends and forecasts of population change including information in Local Plans on housebuilding.
* Validated data on aggregate use in construction provided by the MPA.
* Planned major infrastructure projects including those within the County and 30 miles beyond as detailed in the National Infrastructure Plan 2016- 2020. Also those projects included in Local Economic Partnerships Growth Deals and Strategic Economic Plans together with construction projects identified in District and Unitary Authority's infrastructure Development Plans. Planned highway improvement and maintenance works should also be considered.
* Local Regional and national economic forecasts from various sources.
* Information from the minerals industry on the availability of marine materials.
* Major new sources of recycled or secondary material becoming available.

2 NPPF para 145
3 Planning Practice Guidance Para 064
4 Practice Guidance on The Production and Use of LAAs May 2017 (POS/MPA Guidance)para 3.8


* New environmental constraints being identified in aggregate producing areas or in proximity to them.

5.6. In looking at the appropriateness of the rolling 10 year average as the basis for calculating future demand it is essential that the veracity of the information is examined forensically. In particular are there any factors which have influenced the data such that it does not truly reflect the production of aggregate in the County to the extent that it cannot be relied upon to predict future need. In terms of the basis of a future MLP will it result in a plan which is not justified or effective in terms of whether the plan is sound.

5.7. Geological resources being exhausted and the issue of Finningly Quarry. Finningley Quarry is situated on the northern border of Nottinghamshire where is abuts Doncaster. It should be noted that the latest Nottinghamshire LAA (Oct 2017) advises that the annual production figures for the County have been affected by production at Finningley moving across the border into some of the years covered by the latest 10 years of production5. If this situation were to continue to operate in the future, that is production moving in and out of the County then its inclusion in the 10 year rolling average would be a sound basis for predicting future need. However, the Notts LAA advises6 that the reserves in both Doncaster and Rotherham (also referred to as South Yorkshire) are extremely limited and future supplies will be coming from Nottinghamshire, in particular the quarry at Sturton le Steeple which has permitted reserves.

5.8. This being the case it is necessary to look at the impact Finningley Quarry moving across the border has had on the last 10 years production in Nottinghamshire. This can be done by looking at the Doncaster and Rotherham LAA. Whilst individual quarry production is confidential the explanation below Table 1 makes it clear that production decreased in 2010 from 0.5MT to 0.16MT probably due to production at Finningley moving across the border into Nottinghamshire. Looking at Table 1 production from 2006 to 2015 was either 0.4/5MT or 0.14/5/6MT which indicates that at the higher levels production at Finningley was in Doncaster and at the lower levels it was in Nottinghamshire. Consequently from Table 1 we can deduce which years there would have been a shortfall in the Finningley contribution to the Nottinghamshire landbank and we can calculate the annual difference this will make by averaging the higher and lower figures and subtracting the lower from the higher. The difference is calculated as 0.3MT (0.45MT less 0.15MT).


5.9. The Nottinghamshire 10 year rolling average for sand and gravel is based on the years 2007 to 2016 whilst the Rotherham and Doncaster LAA is based on 2006 to 2015. However the Notts LAA does advise that in 2016 production in Finningley was across the border in Doncaster. This means it is possible to estimate the amount of the shortfall in the Nottinghamshire 2007 to 2016 production figures attributable to production at Finningley being in Doncaster. The calculation is based on table 1:




5 Notts LAA Oct 2017 para 3.1.
6 Notts LAA Oct 2017 para 5.11



Table 1

Year 2007 2008 2009 2015 2016 TOTAL
MT 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5

5.10. The 10 year rolling average if being used to predict future requirement in Nottinghamshire should now be calculated using a 10 year which includes the Finningley missing years as detailed above. That requires an addition 1.5MT to be added to the 17.04MT and results in an average annual sales of 1.85MT compared with the County's calculation of 17.04MT. The contribution of Finningley Quarry to the landbank is clearly a significant local factor which should be taken into account in using the 10 year rolling average as the basis for predicting future need.

5.11. Population Change and house building. The second local factor which needs to be taken into account in reviewing the 10 year rolling average is house building rates in the County and what is now planned. Whilst the County's latest LAA (October 2017) sets out the planned house building rates for the individual planning authorities in the County. It is imported to note that these are not maximum rates but are those which have been rigorously tested through the Local Plan processes including Strategic Housing Market Assessments and in some cases full Independent Examination procedures. It is also important to note that the Local Plans on which these house building rates are based were using pre 2014 Office of National Statistic (ONS) data. The 2014 when applied to the districts in Nottinghamshire will invariably lead to an increase in requirement. Consequently the house building rates in the LAA should be considered as a minimum on which aggregate requirement should be based.

5.12. At Appendix 1 is Table 2 which shows the house building rates for the local planning authority areas in Nottinghamshire over the 10 year period covering that being used by the County for the 10 year rolling average. The information contained within Table 2 has been taken from the Annual Monitoring Reports and other documents produced by the LPAs. The extracts from these documents can also be found at Appendix 1.

5.13. From Table 2 it can be seen that the average annual house building rate per LPA area over the past 10 years has been 351 units per annum. This figure is directly comparable with the average annual sand and gravel production rates calculated from the past 10 years production. Table 2 uses the future house building rates deduced by the County in October 2017 LAA7 to show that the average future rate will be 571 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 220 dwellings per annum and represents a 63% increase. It is essential that this increase is taken as the minimum as it is based on solid evidence, it is not stated as a maximum so may be exceeded and is likely to be an underestimate based on the 2014 ONS data and the latest government advice that house building must increase. The population of Nottinghamshire including the County is expected to grow from 1.13 million in 2016 to 1.25 million in 2036. This growth will require at least the planned housebuilding detailed on Table 2 which is based on the lower pre ONS 2014 estimates and it

7 Para 5.9 Table 8


should be noted that as house building picks up following the recession the annual average rate per authority has already reached 468 dwellings per annum (2015/6) which is 81% of the planned annual requirement..

5.14. Validated data on aggregate use in construction provided by the MPA. The October 2017 LAA references the use of aggregates in house buildings as being 20% of total production. Although it should be noted that at the recent examination into the Oxfordshire MLP 35% was used. It should be noted that house building requires significant support construction such as local roads, schools, village halls etc.

5.15. Planned major infrastructure projects. The October 2017 LAA notes that no further major infrastructure projects have been identified since the production of the previous LAA (January 2017). However that LAA was based on significantly higher rolling 10 year average taking into account partly pre recession construction levels and, therefore, capturing higher level of construction. With the move to the most recent 10 year rolling average this is no longer the case and the LAA needs to recognize that planned infrastructure for the future is significantly higher than accounted for by the 10 year rolling average which now almost solely covering a recession period. An adjustment needs to be made.

5.16. Infrastructure identified in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016 to 2021 for the Nottinghamshire area are:-

* Midland Main Line. Further electrification to Nottingham.
* East Coast Mainline. Station, signaling and track works to facilitate longer new Super Express Trains.
* HS2.

It should be noted that the time period for this infrastructure plan is just 5 years and represents only 16% of the MLP plan period. Also included in the plan is reference to the Midlands Engine and the proposal for carrying out feasibility studies in respect of upgrades to the M1 and Smart motorway improvements together with improvements to the A46 Newark bypass and its intersection with the A1.

5.17. The Local Enterprise Partnership D2N2 (covering Nottingham and Derby and parts of both counties) has produced a programme which includes a target to create 50,000 jobs and to build 77,000 dwellings. The dwellings are included in Local Plan but D2N2 are intending to ensure that infrastructure delivery does not frustrate the building of the dwellings.

5.18. East Midlands airport which lies alongside the HS2 route is planning to increase from 4.3 to 10 million passengers and 300,000 to 700,000t of freight by 2040. The majority of this development will occur in the MLP plan period. A major freight terminal is also planned for the M1 J23a/24. Whilst this is in Leicestershire it lies within the 30 mile zone beyond the County boundary which the POS/MPA advice considers should be included in any future assessment for aggregate provision.



5.19. Local regional and national economic forecast. The latest MPA forecasts (February 2019) suggest that aggregate demand will have increased by 19% by 2019 compared to 2015. Infrastructure growth is expected to be 56% from 2015 to 2019. In the longer term replenishment rates for sand and gravel show that for every 100 tonnes of material used planning permissions for replacement accounts for only 56 tonnes indicating that in the future shortages of supply may become apparent.

5.20. Availability of marine materials. Nottinghamshire is a landlocked county and some distance from any marine sourced aggregate landing facility. Consequently the material is not normally used in the County.

5.21. Major new sources of recycled or secondary material. For Nottinghamshire inert waste processing (considered suitable for recycled aggregate production) has now recovered to pre recession rates. However, whilst power station ash is capable of being substituted for primary aggregates the coal fired power stations are all planned to be closed by 2025. There are 3 coal fired power stations in the County. It would, therefore, be unwise to rely on any further increase in recycled output.

5.22. New environmental constraints. No new environmental constraints which could restrict aggregate extraction in the County have been identified. Locally the ban on extraction in the Peak District National Park has been accounted for by Derbyshire planning to increase production in the rest of the County by an amount equivalent to that to be lost through lack of production in the National Park.

5.23. It is apparent from the above information that there are a number of factors pointing to the need to modify the rolling 10 year average if a robust prediction of future need is to be made. The evidence is that the figure will need to be increased on the basis that during the MLP period more aggregate will have to be exported to South Yorkshire, a greater number of dwellings will be built, more jobe created and more infrastructure built. Of these elements it has been possible to quantify numerically only the impact of the increase in future exports to South Yorkshire and house building rates. House building is considered to represent the use of only 20 to 35% of the total supply of aggregate however house building is a key component in providing dwellings for new employees who will occupy newly constructed factories and commercial premises. House building also drives infrastructure provision including roads, such as those around Newark, schools, hospitals etc. lt is, therefore proposed that the house building rates of the past 10 years be compared with aggregate use of the same period and then used to predict future aggregate requirement.

5.24. Taking the 1.85MTPA 10 year rolling average modified to take account of the Finningley Quarry production changes is comparable with an 10 year rolling average house building rate of per local authority (including Nottingham City) of 351 dwellings per annum. The future house building rate is 572 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 63% and requires a similar increase in aggregate production going forward. This requires that the 10 year rolling average be modified to 3.02MT.


5.25. In order to understand the veracity of this calculation it is useful to look at the 10 year production rates of the counties making up the East Midlands AWP area. Table 3 at Appendix 2 shows figures taken from the LAAs for these counties. The East Midlands in 2016 had reached 70% of its pre recession production rate. Three counties were at around pre recession levels with two counties actually producing more. Lincolnshire is now producing 64 % of its pre recession level but Nottinghamshire is only at 40%. It is clear that lack of production in Nottinghamshire is holding back the East Midlands is reaching pre recession production levels. This assessment supports the need to increase the proposed landbank above that which would result from using the rolling 10 year landbank as the basis for future need prediction.


6. Question 6. Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritized over new greenfield quarries?

Question 8. How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the Count (i.e.Idle Valley, near Newark and near Nottingham) to minimize the distance minerals are transported to market?

Question 9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

6.1. These questions are inter related and the assessment below sets out gives the response which relates to all three questions.

6.2. It is necessary to maintain a geographical spread of quarries and permitted reserves across the County for two reasons. Firstly is the cost of transporting bulky materials relative to value that in respect of aggregates is low. This means that an appropriate geographic spread is important to ensure that the economy works effectively and additional costs are not unnecessarily incurred. It is also the case that for this reason proposed aggregate reserves should be matched geographically to where those reserves will be used. Secondly is the issue of environmental damage caused by HGV movements associated with aggregate transport.

6.3. Table 5 shows the current distribution of permitted reserves compared with spatial requirement for future house building. This is based on the information contained within the October 2017 LAA in respect of permitted reserves and Table 4 at Appendix 3 of this document.


Table 5, Comparison of permitted reserves with future house building requirement.
District S and G
(See Above) Housing requirement per
annum (see Table 2)
Newark area Newark and Sherwood 40% 16%
South Notts Nottingham City Gedling
Broxtowe Rushcliffe 0/12%* 56%
North Notts Bassetlaw Mansfield
Ashfield 28% 18%
* Currently no reserves but East Leake planning application now with a resolution to grant subject to a S.106 Agreement to be completed.

The current distribution is not sustainable in terms of transportation of aggregate and the consequences for air quality and climate change, . If extensions to quarries were to be preferred compared to opening up new sites this unsustainable distribution will continue. This is not in accordance with the NPPF guidance in respect of sustainable development.

6.4. The air quality and climate consequences have been assessed with respect to HGV movements associated with the proposed Shelford Quarry and those at Newark in the attached (Appendix 4) RPS document. This gives an indication of the problems associated with having a poor geographical distribution of mineral resources in the County.


7. Question 10. Is it economical to transport mineral by river barge and if so should proposed quarries with potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge be prioritized over others?

7.1. The River Trent has the potential to reduce transport emissions and have a positive effect on climate change. At Appendix 4 is a report which looked at the potential for air quality benefits of using the river to transport aggregate from the proposed quarry at Shelford to Colwick wharf. Air quality benefits and positive impacts on climate change are set out in the document. This clearly illustrates whilst all opportunities should be taken to allow transport of minerals on the river.

7.2. In respect of the economic consideration these will vary according to local conditions on the Trent and also economic opportunities as they arise. When considering the length of time covered by the plan period the location of a reserve which has access to the river and where proposals demonstrate that barge transport is physically capable of being undertaken without undue environmental disturbance then these sites should be given priority.

7.3. In respect of the proposals at Shelford BAL are proposing to produce concrete at the Colwick Industrial Estate and that aggregate will be transported there by barge. There is a significant positive difference in the transport rates in favour of barges. The actual details are commercially sensitive however, BAL have experience of


barging aggregate on the river Thames and are confident in the commercial opportunities in respect of Shelford and operations at Colwick..

7.4. It should be note as well as transport savings there will be added value from producing concrete at Colwick and the access to the valuable Nottingham city market from the industrial esta