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

Oxton Parish Council would like to make the following comments on the Minerals Local Plan as part of the Issues and Options consultation.

A high priority should be given to ensuring no extraction of any minerals is carried out in the Green Belt.

The Parish Council has serious concerns about fracking in Nottinghamshire and believe it should not be carried out as the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The main concerns are with the contamination of water and the difficulties of disposing of this contaminated water. Also that the process uses exceptionally large amounts of water which itself is a scarce resource. It is therefore questionable whether this process is sustainable.

Q1: Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?
More reference is needed to areas already threatened by flooding, the danger of which may be exacerbated by minerals extraction.
More consideration should be made to the need to conserve agricultural land and not allow it to be destroyed by mineral extraction. Our excessive dependency on imported food and the massive destruction of agricultural land which has taken place in recent years will leave our country in a very vulnerable situation in the future.
You should most certainly hold very firmly to your avowed intentions to "uphold strong environmental principles and enhance the environment" and avoid "unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health."
Massive industrial-scale extraction in environmentally sensitive areas such as that which was proposed at Shelford would be totally unacceptablein the light of your own statements.
Q2: Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?
Throughout the report there are only brief passing references to recycling and development of alternatives to extraction of minerals which I think shows a sad lack of vision. Your state that there is a lack of reliable data concerning recycling within the county. Should that not be an area for your department to investigate more thoroughly and promote ?
A much stronger will and initiative to a commitment to developing alternatives to sand and gravel extraction needs to be demonstrated. The web is full of documents from other areas and countries which show a much greater commitment to reducing the reliance on extracted materials. We HAVE to take all steps NOW to conserve our planet before it is too late.
Q3: Are the strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?
The strategic issues are appropriate as long as they are strictly adhered to.

Q4: Do you think the average 10 year sales figure 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.
In theory it seems sensible, but it allows no room for considering the impact from potential for using more recycled products in the future. Any forecasts of the volume of minerals required are based on the present heavy reliance on extracted aggregates, whereas with more vigorous development of recycling, those needs would diminish.
Q5: Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 years sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?
Q6: Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries? In theory, yes, If they are still viable and will cause minimum negative impacts on nearby communities. Why destroy more countryside unnecessarily? The term "greenfield sites" seems a sadly ironic misnomer.
Q7: Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?
Every decision must take into account the potential long term impact on the environment and existing communities.
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?
There is a contradiction here in that you state that minerals extracted in the county are transported to Rotherham and Doncaster which can hardly minimise the transportation distances.
Q9: Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?
Those areas which will have the least negative impacts on communities and the environment.
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?
50 years ago, the River Trent was a busy highway with barges transporting goods and causing no negative impacts on communities or the environment. Sadly, over the years, this has dwindled to nothing. Any means of transport which reduces the number of heavy vehicles on the roads is an environmental priority ,even if it is more costly, and should be thoroughly investigated. However, developers, who want to maximise their profits, are likely to find arguments to evade this, even if at the outset they seem to support it!
Q11: Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
------------------
Q12: Is there evidence to suggest that additional crushed rock reserves are required to meet demand n 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?
You state that alternative aggregates provide for 29% of consumption and the new minerals plan should anticipate an expansion of their use.
Q14: Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
As already stated elsewhere, a much greater emphasis and commitment should be demonstrated.
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 that an adequate supply of clay can be maintained over the Plan period?
------------------------
Q16: Is a criteria based policy the most suitable approach to cover the potential for new brick works and associated clay pits?
-----------------------
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?
------------------------
Q18: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Gypsum that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?
--------------------------------
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?
----------------------------------
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?
----------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------
Q22: Are you aware of any other issues relating to building stone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
--------------------------------------
Q23: Are you aware of any issues relating to coal extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
Fossil fuels should be a thing of the past and we should put all our energies into sustainable and renewable sources of energy.
Q24: Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
Hydrocarbon extraction of existing mine gas would be acceptable as it would have a positive environmental impact and involve no further land destruction, but shale gas and coal bed extraction would both have destructive impacts.
Q25: Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?
--------------------------
Q26: Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation. The following comments are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response.

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

Anglian Water is identified as a statutory consultee through Schedule 4 (zf) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in relation to development involving the boring for or getting of oil and natural gas from shale. Therefore it would be helpful if the Minerals Local Plan referred to early engagement with interested parties including Anglian Water in advance of a planning application(s) relating to hydrocarbon extraction being submitted to Nottinghamshire County Council for its consideration.

Reference is made to the inclusion of a criteria based policy which would ensure that a proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the environment. However no further guidance is provided in terms of what would constitute an unacceptable impact in this context.

The policy relating to hydrocarbon extraction should specifically refer to water resources/environment and require applicants to demonstrate that their proposals would not have an adverse impact on potable water sources in the ownership of Anglian Water. This would include providing sufficient technical detail at the planning application stage about how any risks to potable water resources will be addressed.

In addition it would be helpful if the policy referred to applicants demonstrating that there is capacity is available or could be made available within the water supply network and/or foul sewerage network to serve the site.

We would welcome the opportunity to comment further on the wording of the hydrocarbon extraction policy in advance of the publication of the Draft Local Plan.

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

Reference is made to water resources and flood risk as being a development management policy area proposed for inclusion in the Minerals Local Plan.

It is essential to protect the public water supply sources from any activities that might cause pollution. It is therefore suggested that a policy or policies should be included in the Minerals Local Plan which specifically refers to ensuring that potable water sources in the ownership of Anglian Water in Nottinghamshire are not adversely affected by minerals development.

We would welcome the opportunity to comment further on the wording of relevant development management policies in advance of the publication of the Draft Local Plan.

Q1: Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?
Villages and hamlets which are along major road routes

Q2: Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include? Agree with draft vision.
Please confirm the geological constraints in Nottinghamshire that will impact the "vision"

Q3: Are the strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider? No, it does not address hydrocarbons

Q4: Do you think the average 10 year sales figure 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.
Prolonged period of austerity not best for forecasting, would average of last 20 years be more appropriate.

Q5: Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 years sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?
Only use 20 years for sand and gravel.

Q6: Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?
Yes, infrastructure in place.

Q7: Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?
Yes, depending on impact on local communities and life of existing permitted quarries.

Q8: How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the County (ie Idle Valley, near Newark and near Nottingham) to minimise the distance minerals are transported to markets?
Important for environmental impact, reducing road miles. Special provisions (landscaping, routing etc.) should be made at planning stage with enforcement methods to reduce impact on local communities. All landscaping to be carried out as soon as possible after permission given to reduce impact.

Q9: Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?
Yes. Were provisions already existing, landscaping and routing established to reduce impact on local communities. Good relationships often already exist between local communities and quarry companies to reduce problems.

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? Barge transport has been used on the River Trent in the recent past and should be prioritised.

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. Unable to reply due to insufficient information.

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

Q14: Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review? No.

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 that an adequate supply of clay can be maintained over the Plan period? Unable to reply due to insufficient information

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

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? Unable to reply due to insufficient information

Q18: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Gypsum that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review? Unable to reply due to insufficient information

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? Unable to reply due to insufficient information

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? Unable to reply due to insufficient information

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. Unable to reply due to insufficient information

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

Q23: Are you aware of any issues relating to coal extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review? Yes; Carbon Capture. We suggest that consideration is given to "softening" planning for coal extraction for power plants that use carbon capture storage.

Q24: Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review? Yes; Carbon Capture. We suggest that consideration is given to "softening" planning for coal extraction for power plants that use carbon capture storage.

Q25: Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered? Routes for vehicles from quarries to avoid villages and hamlets along major roads.

Q26: Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review? Railheads should be built where quarries are adjacent to current currently used railways lines.

Fracking is considered so dangerous that Germany and Scotland have banned the process. The French consider it so dangerous that they have banned it not just in France but in all of their territories worldwide. Studies on the subject which have not in someway been funded by the industry state that fracking should never be considered safe where the geology of a region is fractured (the whole of the UK falls into this category), where a region is seismically active (Nottinghamshire) or where the region has previously been mined (Nottinghamshire).

Shale gas exploitation
The plan should address the possibility of contamination to the Sherwood aquifer from loss of well integrity due to failure of the lining - an increased risk due to high level of seismic activity in the former coal mining areas.
The high demand for water required for the hydraulic fracturing process could cause depletion of local water resources.
There is a risk of groundwater pollution from mismanagement of contaminated water from the fracturing process.
At a time when many local boreholes are producing water with nitrate levels above the acceptable levels it would be unwise to take any risks with this essential resource.

Emissions from the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, methane, ozone, toluene and xylene have been recorded at shale gas sites. The increase in road traffic would raise levels of pollutants along the routes used.
Methane leakage from the wells and the impact of burning fossil fuels is contrary to local and national policies to reduce climate emissions and move towards a low carbon economy.

The impact of the industrialisation of the countryside on tourism, agriculture and health and wellbeing of local people should not be underestimated. Once Sherwood Forest becomes associated with 'fracking' the loss of employment and income from tourism could outweigh any short term economic boost from the shale gas industry. There is already a suggestion that house prices are affected and people may wish to relocate from a gas field to avoid air, noise and light pollution.

The move towards self-regulation by the gas industry, the lack of preparation by regulators combined with the reduction in funding for these bodies raises serious concerns about monitoring and enforcement. Any local policy should ensure that all standards are fully implemented. Environmental samples should be taken by an independent organisation ahead of the commencement of any operations to provide baseline figures to ensure public confidence in any monitoring procedures.

The structuring of companies within the shale gas industry raises the prospect that companies will not be able fulfil their obligations regarding the decommissioning, decontamination and restoration of any sites and other affected areas. There is also the possibility of wells being abandoned if companies cease to be economically viable. The issue of compensation for any longer term impacts should be addressed. The responsibilities of the local authority and central government to deal with the cost of any long term environmental issues should be clarified.

The environmental damage that would be caused by allowing fracking to take place should be given very careful consideration. To allow the landscape to be destroyed as drill sites are established, tearing down trees and digging up land and to put the water table as risk from serious contamination is decision that would go against the principles set out by the Council.
Consideration regarding the provision of the vast amounts of water required by the operation and the limited resources available, and then the methods by which the contaminated water would be safely disposed of are extremely important.

Please ensure that woodland areas are not polluted as a result of fracking developments. If such wells are to be drilled, make sure they are ONLY on agricultural land, not sensitive and valuable forestry, or near moorland such as Budby south forest (a very rare ecosystem which cannot be repaired if a leak were to occur).

Representation
If the Plan is to achieve aims of sustainable development, not compromising future generations, ensuring no unacceptable impacts on natural and historic environment, human health and residential amenity and "engaging with and supporting communities affected by minerals development", it must prioritize robust protection against the known unacceptable impacts of the Shale Gas Industry instead of facilitating the development of the Shale Gas industry. Planning permission for shale gas must not be granted unless it is demonstrated beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that any risk of adverse impacts has been eliminated.
SG development cannot be compared to previous conventional oil/gas activities; unconventional high volume hydraulic fracturing is new to the UK; the number of drill sites proposed is unprecedented - Ineos propose 15 drill sites per 6 mile square license area (10-12 wells per site) effectively industrializing huge areas of rural landscape.
Special Areas of Conservation and future Special Protection Areas are already under threat from unacceptable impacts e.g. Sherwood Forest faces underground fracking and intrusive seismic surveying; Ineos threatening court action at Clumber Park for refusing the intrusive surveying procedures; archaeologically important Thynghowe Viking assembly site is very close to a possible exploratory drill site. Ecological, conservation and wildlife issues must be made a priority if we are to preserve our countryside for future generations. In addition:
Robust protection within the Plan will be essential for:
* Groundwater and surface water - Millions of gallons of fresh water needed per frack with no infrastructure yet to deal with huge increases in levels of toxic flow back waste - Groundwater already under stress from demand and other forms of pollution; dumping into rivers should be absolutely forbidden unless the treated water is free from any toxins/radioactivity. Protecting farming areas/produce from water/air contamination risks. Development should not be allowed to commence until all necessary infrastructure is in place. Well integrity failure, a big risk in an area of increased seismic activity like Ollerton, is a known cause of aquifer contamination.
* Many studies done to date shows regulatory system currently inadequate to control a largely self-regulating industry with a poor track record for pollution and safety issues. Cumulative effects of multiple well sites must be taken into consideration with each application for realistic appraisal. Reduction in funding for monitoring/enforcement agencies is a serious concern. Plan policy must ensure that all required standards are fully implemented without exception. Environmental samples should be taken by an independent organisation ahead of the commencement of any operations to provide baseline figures to ensure public confidence in any monitoring procedures.
* Known emissions from producing shale gas wells are benzene, ethylbenzene, methane, ozone, toluene and xylene, all of which are harmful to the environment/human health and wildlife. Increased HGV traffic - emissions reduce air quality; increased road congestion/accident risk. All go against existing policies aimed at increasing air quality and reducing climate changing impacts.
* Protecting the human rights of residents to live without increased risk from: reduced air quality and scientifically-proven health risks, noise and light pollution, stress.
* Economic impacts from increased industrialization of an area of tourism and agriculture, loss of tourism jobs, risks to farming from water shortages, contaminated water/air, and the impact of reduced house values.
* Ensuring that companies who wish to engage in SG extraction are able to fulfil their obligations regarding the decommissioning, decontamination and restoration of any sites and compensation for health issues caused, without the risks/costs falling on the taxpayer/landowner/local authority should the company fail. Other issues - handling of abandoned wells and their future leakage, possibly thousands throughout Notts, and compensation for any resulting long term impacts. Clarification of the responsibilities of local authority and central government to deal with the cost of any long term environmental/health issues is essential.
* Ensure voices of the communities who live in the proposed gas field are heard, prioritized and acted upon! -"engage with and support communities affected by minerals development"
* Contravenes Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change - not moving away from fossil fuels even when SG is not essential to the UK's energy future (government report October 2017).
Resource material available to back up the above points, not included for reasons of space!

No comments.

Yes, the risks of water pollution and environmental damage definitely need to be considered.

Yes.
CPRE considers that there should be a moratorium on fracking unless it can be clearly demonstrated that fracking would:
- help secure the radical reductions in carbon emissions required to comply with planning policy and meet legally binding climate change targets;
- not lead to unacceptable cumulative harm, whether for particular landscapes or on the English countryside as a whole, and
- be carefully controlled by effective systems of regulation and democratic planning, which are adequately resourced at both local and national levels.

Climate change is the most urgent and complex threat to the English countryside today.

Fracking is at odds with a legal requirement for Plan policies to reduce climate emissions (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s19(1A)). A separate policy is needed for the special problems associated with unconventional hydrocarbons. During the time the Plan will be in force, if bodies like Ineos and IGas are given sway, large parts of Notts could be turned into extensive gasfields with the prospect of only 1.1 miles between drill sites. Research in the US shows deleterious health impacts on people living within a mile of a drill site - including cancer, respiratory problems, adverse birth outcomes.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM BILSTHORPE PARISH COUNCIL 8th JANUARY 2018

1 No
2 Yes & no
3 Yes & no
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 No, We think they should be judged on merit in line with the councils stated criteria
7 No
8 Very important
9 Not sure
10 A cost analysis is required to determine this
11 No
12 No
13 No
14 No
15 It should be a criteria based policy
16 Yes
17 Criteria based policy
18 No
19 No
20 No
21 No
22 No
23 No
24 Yes, what or who dictates what is an unacceptable impact on the environment and public?
There should be a long term impact assessment carried out and published before proceeding
25 A future impact assessment required
26 No

1 January 2018
Dear Sir/Madam
New Minerals Local Plan
I write in response to your consultation on the new Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan.
It is noted that it is the intention that the new Minerals Local Plan will cover a period of 19 year
from 2016 to 2036. This is the Issues & Options consultation stage and it does not consider
or identify and new sites or extensions to existing minerals extraction sites. .
The consultation asks a series of questions. I have responded below to those that are most
relevant to Nottingham City Council.
Q2 Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?
The vision appears to be appropriate for a Minerals Local Plan and in accordance with the
NPPF.
Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?
The strategic issues identified appear to be appropriate. However it is considered that
adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment should also form the basis of a
strategic issue.
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.
Using a rolling average of 10 years sales data accords with the NPPF although other relevant
local information, and an assessment of all supply options should also be taken into account
as part of the assessment.
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?
Planning Policy & Research
Planning Services
Loxley House
Nottingham City Council
Loxley House
Station St
Nottingham NG2 3NG
Tel: 0115 876 2561
www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk
Planning Policy Team
Place Department
Nottinghamshire County Council
County Hall
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 7QP
My Ref: Notts Mineral Local Plan
Your
Ref:
N/A
Contact: Matthew Grant
Email: matthew.grant@nottinghamcity.gov.uk
Generally the same methodology should be used unless there is clear evidence to deviate
from this.
Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new
greenfield quarries?
There should not be a presumption for either new quarries or extensions to existing where
increased capacity is required. Instead the most sustainable options should be pursued.
Q7 Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be
adopted for individual mineral types?
Each site/mineral type is individual and the impacts and benefits will need to be considered
on their own merits
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?
There is logic in having a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the County
as this is likely to be more sustainable, reducing transport and help meet market demand.
Q9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?
Areas with good links to the strategic transport network should be prioritised as this is likely to
be more sustainable.
Q24 Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be
considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?
A criteria based policy approach to be in line with the NPPF is supported. The City Council
has an adopted position on renewable energy, which is attached for your information.
If you have any queries regarding the issues raised above please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Grant
Senior Planner (Policy)
Direct line : 0115 876 2561

ANNEX. RSPB response to the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation.
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.

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

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - Issues and Options Consultation

This letter forms UKOOG's response to the 'Issues and Options Consultation' for the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan. UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and production.

The onshore oil and gas industry in the UK has a long history, having been in existence for over 150 years, working closely with communities and the wider environment over that time. There are a number of oil and gas operating companies currently active in Nottinghamshire, providing jobs and helping to support the local economy and the wider community within the county.
UKOOG and the onshore industry very much welcomes the opportunity to engage with Nottinghamshire County Council in the development of this Minerals Local Plan, as we recognise the strategic importance of establishing robust policies that will determine minerals provision in the county until 2036.
At this current time UKOOG does not have any specific comments on the questions posed within the 'Issues and Options' document, but we are supportive of the councils suggested approach to develop a 'criteria based policy for hydrocarbons', which recognises the roles of the other regulators and aligns with national policy on both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons.
We would support a similar approach in the formulation of policies relating to hydrocarbons to that taken by Lincolnshire County Council in their Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The policies are considered to be concise and well-structured and take a measured and sound approach, which has been successfully examined and supported by the adoption of the Local Plan in June 2016.

We would welcome the opportunity to be involved in the next stages of the development plan and would be grateful if you could ensure we are informed as the plan develops.

Submission of Response to the Nottinghamshire County Council Minerals Local Plan by the Teversal, Stanton Hill & Skegby Neighbourhood Forum.

1. It is noted that p36 of the Plan proposes: A criteria based policy for hydrocarbons ensuring that a proposed development does not have any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity at each phase (exploration, appraisal, extraction) is considered appropriate to address future conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon development in Nottinghamshire.

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

2. Our Forum submits that the Minerals Local Plan review should take into account the following issues:

A. The majority of hundreds of academic studies on the health and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing for the exploitation of shale gas suggest the threats of water and air contamination are real. Nine professors of medicine and nine other senior medical personnel have called for a ban on fracking in the British Medical Journal http://tinyurl.com/shalestudies

This potential threat to community health goes well beyond the statement of 'unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity' stated in connection with a criteria based policy, and the criteria based policy should be amended accordingly.

B. Developing a new gas field is a policy choice to continue to rely on natural gas, a cause of global warming, when we need to transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and take steps to radically reduce our need for energy. Methane leakages make this process worse for the climate than burning coal http://tinyurl.com/shaleclimate.

Developing new gas fields using hydraulic fracturing for the exploitation of shale gas has the potential for increasing green-house gas emissions at a time when national and local government are committed to implementing the COP 21 Paris Agreement on Climate Change and substantially reducing emissions. It is therefore submitted that the development of this type of gas field would quite clearly produce, through the generation of methane emissions, an unacceptable impact on the environment - as specified under the proposed criteria based policy -. Therefore any provision for this type of development is clearly unacceptable and should be dropped from the Plan.

Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan - Issues & Options Consultation
Comments from Nottingham Friends of the Earth

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

1) There is a legal requirement for Plan policies to reduce climate emissions (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s19(1A)). The Plan period will extend beyond 2030 so should be compatible with statutory climate emissions reductions targets set for 2030, and with carbon budgets through the Plan period.

2) Fossil fuel extraction has been a major source of climate emissions through methane leakage, particularly over the last decade when high volume hydraulic fracturing has become established in the US and elsewhere. A NASA team recently calculated that fossil fuels have contributed about 12 to 19 teragrammes methane to the atmosphere each year since 2006, about half of the overall increase, the other half being due to biogenic sources. (John R Worden et al, Nature Communications 8, 2227, 20 December 2017. See: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=91564&src=ve)

3) Plan policies should take a precautionary approach to climate emissions and should not approve any development which may cause leakage of methane in the short, medium or long term. In particular, any proposal which cannot reliably quantify and control methane leaks in the short, medium and long term should not be allowed. That should mean no new working of coal, oil or gas seams, given the impossibility with current technology of guaranteeing the integrity of well casings, etc. Conversely, the Plan should continue to support capping of disused coal mines to prevent methane leaking to atmosphere.

4) The Water Framework Directive requires a precautionary approach, particularly to protect groundwater from all contamination (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm). Particular care will be required to protect Sherwood sandstone aquifers used for drinking water and agriculture, and particularly in the former coal mining areas which are already subject to minor earthquakes and minewater pollution. (The biggest risk of earthquakes is to damage well linings and allow leakage of toxic fluids and gases.)

5) For horizontal drilling proposals, definition of site boundary must include (in 3-D) the full extent of any horizontal drilling underground. (As required by Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s55(1) which defines "development" to include "... building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land ...")

6) As well as a risk of methane leakage, there is also a risk of venting carcinogenic gases such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX) as well as radon which is radioactive, which may be a direct threat to public health. Diesel compressors which are necessary for high pressure hydraulic fracturing and vehicles also contribute to gasfield haze with particulates, nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone likely occupational hazards. Silica sand used in hydraulic fracturing may also be a major health hazard. A precautionary approach should therefore be taken, particularly to any proposal which may involve hydraulic fracturing.

7) The planning authority has a responsibility to check that other regulators will be able to do their job. Planning Practice Guidance (Reference ID: 27-112-20140306) advises minerals planning authorities that "before granting planning permission they will need to be satisfied that these issues can or will be adequately addressed by taking the advice from the relevant regulatory body: ...
Mitigation of seismic risks...
Well design and construction...
Well integrity during operation...
Operation of surface equipment on the well pad...
Mining waste...
Chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluid...
Flaring or venting...
Final off-site disposal of water...
Well decommissioning/abandonment..."
(As an example, the Planning Inspector in rejecting an appeal by Egdon Resources against refusal of planning permission for a conventional oil well at Wressle by North Lincolnshire Council (APP/Y2003/W/17/3173530 & APP/Y2003/W/17/318060, 4 January 2018 https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3173530&CoID=0) found that the required ground condition report had not been prepared and this did not seem to have been addressed by the Environment Agency in their Environmental Permitting decision document (para 24).)
In some cases, planning conditions may need to be used to ensure these issues are adequately addressed, particularly to protect ground and surface water and to minimise the impact on the causes of climate change in the short, medium and long term.

8) Regulatory failures include a failure by the Environment Agency to stop Cuadrilla dumping fracking wastewater from Preese Hall containing radioactivity into the Manchester Ship Canal. And Michael Hill, an engineer involved in fracking at Preese Hall, states that "the only well to have been fracked in the U.K.
suffered an integrity failure that the HSE were not aware of for up to THREE years,
suffered damage to the casing due to unpredicted induced seismicity, caused by the fracking, which neither HSE nor the DECC were aware of for over 12 months,
was never inspected once by the HSE for well integrity, which may or may not have leaked into the surrounding formations (we do not know because the EA have not checked) and which has now been abandoned."
http://media.wix.com/ugd/b0aabf_5902a55b06fd4338a56db38dd8687240.pdf

9) A review of evidence on regulation by Watterson & Dinan of Stirling University (October 2016) concluded (http://www.regulatingscotland.org/report/frackingandregulation.pdf):
* the evidence base for robust regulation and good industry practice is currently absent. There are multiple serious challenges surrounding location, scale, monitoring and data deficits facing regulators overseeing onshore UGE and fracking in the UK;
* the evidence from peer-reviewed papers suggests fracking in the UK will not be effectively regulated. It is highly likely that regulatory agencies may lack the staffing and resources necessary to monitor and enforce effective regulation of the industry;
* US and UK peer-reviewed analyses and EU law identify both the precautionary principle and prevention as keys to dealing with fracking. This is underpinned by findings from the peer-reviewed public health literature that already identifies significant hazards and major potential risks from the industry.

10) UK government policy and guidance on high-volume hydraulic fracturing is based on out of date research, such as the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering review (July 2012) and a report by Public Health England (although this was published in June 2014 it was not significantly changed from a 2013 draft which was based on evidence available upto 2012). This ignores more than 80% of the peer reviewed scientific literature on the environmental and health impacts of shale gas development which has been published since 2012: www.psehealthyenergy.org/our-work/shale-gas-research-library/ And only one out of 10 recommendations of the RS/RAE review had been implemented in full after 2 years: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60888-6/fulltext

11) The most detailed research is probably that carried out by the State of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation which considered the available information on potential environmental impacts of high-volume hydraulic fracturing and possible mitigation measures and concluded (in June 2015): "In the end, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives that would adequately avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and that address the scientific uncertainties and risks to public health from this activity. The Department's chosen alternative to prohibit high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the best alternative based on the balance between protection of the environment and public health and economic and social considerations." (2015 SEQR Findings Statement, page 42: www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html)

12) The most comprehensive review of peer reviewed studies on the impacts of fracking has been produced by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York. The fourth edition dated November 2016 (http://concernedhealthny.org) lists the following emerging trends:
1. regulations are not capable of preventing harm
2. fracking threatens drinking water
3. emissions contribute to toxic air pollution and smog (ground-level ozone)
4. public health problems, including occupational health and safety, are increasingly well documented
5. natural gas is a bigger threat to the climate than previously believed
6. earthquakes are a consequence in many locations
7. fracking infrastructure poses serious potential exposure risks
8. exposure to 'naturally occurring radioactive materials' is a risk for both workers and residents
9. risks in California could be affecting food crops
10. economic instabilities of fracking further exacerbate public health risks
11. fracking raises issues of environmental justice
12. health care professionals are increasingly calling for bans or moratoria until the full range of potential health hazards from fracking are understood

13) The scale and intensity of high volume hydraulic fracturing should require a separate policy to protect Nottinghamshire's people and environment from unconventional hydrocarbon development. Shale is not porous so the gas (and perhaps oil) that it contains does does not flow to the well - to drain an extensive area it is necessary for fracturing to create artificial porosity. This has to be done across an area not at a single location requiring the construction of many originating well pads each of which is associated with a great deal of surface activity and infrastructure. During the time the Plan will be in force large parts of Notts could be turned into extensive gasfields - exploiting shale gas in Northern Notts and South Western Notts, and coal bed methane in Eastern Notts.

14) The potential scale of industrialisation of the countryside is indicated in a briefing by Ineos showing upto 420 wells in each 10km square licence area (30 wellpads with upto 14 horizontal wells from each wellpad: http://frackfreeryedale.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/INEOS-online-ad-for-Seismic-Survey-Contractor-06.05.16.pdf). This will require extensive roadways, pipelines, etc as well as the wellpads. While Ineos acknowledges that social and environmental constraints mean that the actual intensity of development will be less than this theoretical maximum, it is still anticipating perhaps 10 wellpads with 12 wells from each per 10km square - around 120 wells in total - which could result in over 1,000 wells just in Ineos' licenses around the Sherwood Forest area.

15) There are a number of issues currently being examined in North Yorkshire's Minerals Plan which Nottinghamshire may wish to consider in relation to high volume hydraulic fracturing. These include limits on well density, separation distance from sensitive receptors, and appropriate definition of hydraulic fracturing.

Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan Issues and Options Consultation Submission on Behalf of INEOS Upstream Ltd
January 2018


Introduction

Felsham Planning and Development is instructed to submit a representation to the Minerals Plan Issues and Options Consultation on behalf of INEOS Upstream Ltd. This representation deals with the need to include policies covering unconventional gas in the Minerals Plan.

This submission addresses Questions 24 and 25 of the Issues paper, which state:

Question 24 Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Plan Review?

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

Regulation 18 of the Development Plan Regulations requires the local planning authority to collect evidence and to identify key issues. Unconventional gas is one such key issue. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that each planning authority should ensure that their local plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area. That evidence is required to be tightly focused on supporting and justifying particular policies in the Minerals Plan.

In our view the Minerals Plan as previously drafted had a very good and succinct unconventional gas policy. We have used this as an example of good practice in submissions we have made to other minerals plans and local plans. We would like the policy as previously drafted to be carried forward into the new Minerals Plan.

We believe that unconventional gas and onshore hydrocarbons raise issues that the Minerals Plan will need to specifically consider and that this needs to be addressed in a separate policy. Accordingly, we set out below the case for specific policies dealing with unconventional gas and onshore hydrocarbons. We have suggested the approach that the Minerals Plan should take through the supporting text, policy and glossary.

Background

The UK Government's energy policies seek to encourage the use of natural resources indigenous to the UK as part of achieving self- sufficiency in energy production and increasing security of energy and gas supplies. This covers a range of onshore hydrocarbons that include inter alia; shale, coal bed methane and oil. The Minerals Plan requires a policy to cover all the hydrocarbons that are potentially found in the area licenced by the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) under the Petroleum Exploration & Licence (PEDL) regime and could be extracted over the plan period.

Onshore hydrocarbons are important to the UK because they are a potential long-term source of indigenous natural gas. These untapped energy resources have the potential to meet the UK's need for a secure and diverse energy supply. The Minerals Plan needs to recognise that there are a range of sources of this resource and policy should cover all onshore hydrocarbons, and recognise that the planning and other regulatory process provide sufficient safeguards to enable the LDP to contain a positive statement of support for the process, in line with the support given in NPPF.

Therefore, the Minerals Plan should address the full range of onshore hydrocarbon extraction including:

 Conventional onshore oil and gas development.
 Extraction of petroleum or hydrocarbon oils and gases by drilling and pumping.
 Capture of methane that has accumulated in mines.
 Coal bed methane and gas derived from shale reservoirs.

Onshore hydrocarbon exploration and development is incremental in nature with a phased approach to exploration, appraisal and production. The initial exploration phases, if successful, determine the strategy for the development of the PEDL area. With CBM, testing the ability of a coal seam to produce commercial volumes of gas cannot be achieved with the use of one borehole. Typically a number of boreholes will be drilled across a known isolated slab of coal within a Licence Area. These wells will then be pumped as a collective to have a uniform drainage effect on the coal. Commercial production will be determined by the volume of gas being produced when the volume of water that is being produced has reached a plateau. If the initial Pilot Test is successful additional wells are added to the initial appraisal cluster in order to scale up the production and commerciality of an area. Each well bore is expected to have a useful production life of up to 25 years.

Shale gas also requires a number of boreholes across the Licence area. These boreholes will be tested and, if commercial production is determined to be achievable, additional wells may be added to the initial cluster. Each shale wellbore is expected to have a useful production life of up to 25 years.

Similar principles apply to exploration of the other onshore hydrocarbon resources identified above. In every case there is strong regulation outside the planning process. Planning provides significant controls to monitor the land use implications. Having regard to these safeguards there is no reason for the Minerals Plan not to contain a positive statement of support through policy and its supporting text.

Support within the emerging Local Plan and future associated documents is therefore essential to enable long term onshore hydrocarbon development strategy to realise these nationally valuable resources.



Response to Question 24

Within the Command Paper, The Energy Challenge the UK Government welcomes proposals to increase the flexibility in the UK onshore hydrocarbon market through sustainable practices but without being too prescriptive.

Support for CBM as a natural energy source is set the Minerals Planning Practice Guidance 2014 issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government. This replaces Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals (MPS1) 2006. The key provisions of the Minerals PPG include:

 The requirement to take account of the need to establish whether there are sufficient quantities of recoverable unconventional hydrocarbons such as shale gas and coal bed methane (paragraph 93);
 The planning authority should make appropriate provision for hydrocarbons in its development plan to enable areas of extraction to be identified and to manage potentially conflicting land use objectives (105);
 The local plan covering the PEDL area should identify the area on the proposals map and provide clear policy guidance (106);
 Local plans may include specific allocations for extraction sites should the onshore oil and gas industry wish to promote such sites (107).

It is considered important that an energy policy framework is set within the Minerals Plan to recognise CBM, unconventional gas and other forms of onshore oil and gas as a source of national energy production and the national, strategic and spatial implications of the proposed use of CBM and unconventional gas as part of the energy suite of resources.

It is important that an energy policy framework is set within the Minerals Plan to recognise oil, CBM, shale gas and other forms of onshore oil and gas (as listed above) as a source of national energy production and the national, strategic and spatial implications of their proposed use as part of the range of energy resources.

The area covered by the Minerals Plan contains potentially significant reserves of unworked coal along with other hydrocarbon resources that can make a positive contribution to the nation's energy supply and sustainable economic development of the area by embracing new energy technologies, including CBM and shale gas. It is therefore vital that the Local Plan recognises the guidance contained in Minerals PPG and the importance of unworked coal seams and oil and shale reservoirs establishing a vision for the area for the next 10 - 15 years.

We set out below draft supporting text and policy that we would like to see incorporated into the Minerals Plan. It notes that the main concerns are with the environment and residential amenity but as there are other policies dealing with such impacts, each containing assessment criteria, the oil and gas development policy of the plan does not need to list these considerations in its policy. The supporting text should provide background and justification, which links to the National Planning Policy Framework and other Government policies, and the PEDLs are mapped and safeguarded.




Policy - Onshore Hydrocarbons
Proposals for the extraction of onshore hydrocarbons - coal bed methane, shale gas and other forms of onshore oil and gas exploration are in the national interest and will be favourably considered in the Safeguarded Areas indicated on the proposals map.
Applications for individual wells or groups of wells as part of the process of exploration and production for onshore unconventional hydrocarbon exploration, the associated interconnecting pipelines and other essential processing or distribution infrastructure to serve more than one development area will be permitted provided significant adverse environmental impacts do not arise.
Applications should be presented with sufficient information to adequately assess the environmental implications of the proposals including field development plans, where possible. Cumulative environmental impacts should be considered and assessed if necessary. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites or European Protected Species will be considered in accord with existing Policies.
Conditions and agreements should be attached to planning permissions to ensure the exploration and production operations have an acceptable impact on the local environment or residents. Permissions for wells will be conditioned for the life of the well.
Exploration

1. Proposals for hydrocarbon exploration will be supported provided they do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

Appraisal

2. Where hydrocarbons are discovered, proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided that they are consistent with an overall scheme for the appraisal and delineation of the resource and do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

Extraction

3. Proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for enabling the full development of the resource and do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.
4. Where proposals for hydrocarbon development coincide with areas containing other underground mineral resources evidence must be provided to demonstrate that their potential for future exploitation will not be unreasonably affected.

Restoration

5. All applications for hydrocarbon development will be accompanied with details of how the site will be restored once the development is no longer required.





Response to Question 25

Question 25 deals with key issues to be taken into account in determining applications at all stages of the process. Our comments are as follows:

High operating standards - in terms of hours of operation, there needs to be some recognition of the possibility of 24 hour working. This can be satisfactorily accommodated depending on a particular site's characteristics.

Noise - the stated noise requirement should reflect planning conditions used elsewhere and should not raise new or more onerous constraints.

Air Quality - this references what is required by other regulatory regimes. It is important that the planning system does not introduce a more onerous test than the regulatory system primarily used to control this issue.

Surface and ground water protection - planning should not impose more onerous controls than those required by other regulatory regimes

Flaring - planning should not impose more onerous controls than those required by other regulatory regimes

Landscape and visual impacts - the requirement to agree what action is appropriate should be determined on a site by site basis. This is an activity that will inevitably have some visual impact. Whilst that impact can be mitigated it needs to be set in the context of wider benefits and the industry should not be subject to more onerous requirements than other extractive industries.

Traffic and transport - the requirement to agree what action is appropriate should be determined on a site by site basis.

Flood risk - controls should be as per normal planning conditions.

Heritage assets - controls should be as per normal planning conditions.

Nature conservation - controls should be as per normal planning conditions.

(See full attached representation for footnotes and tables)

New Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (Issues and Options Consultation)

Friends of the Earth (FoE) England, Wales and Northern Ireland is grateful for an opportunity to respond to the Issues and Options consultation on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan. Our comments are made with specific regard to hydrocarbon extraction (re Question 24):

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

Our comments include considerations which we feel are relevant to the above question, and draw on points we have championed in the formation of minerals local plans in other authority areas where these are also relevant to the Nottinghamshire context.

- Matter 1: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
- Matter 2: Local Impacts
- Matter 3: Precautionary principle
- Matter 4: Surface and Sub-Surface Restrictions (AHVF)
- Matter 5: Coal phase out
- Matter 6: Sustainability Appraisal

These issues should be considered when setting out plan objectives and policies, which should ensure tests of soundness are met regarding NPPF paragraph 182:

"The local plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role it is to assess whether... it is sound...namely:
- Positively prepared: based on a strategy which seeks objectively assessed requirements
...consistent with achieving sustainable development
- Justified: The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, considered against the reasonable alternatives; based on proportionate evidence
- Effective: ...deliverable over its plan period...
- Consistent with national policy: ...enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with policies in the Framework
-
Matter 1: Climate Change Mitigation

1. As highlighted to other minerals authorities, Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004)1 puts an obligation on plan-making authorities to ensure the following:

"Development plan documents must (taken as a whole) include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority's area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change"

2. The wording of the 2004 act is also reflected in the NPPF2, which states:

"...Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change [footnote 16], taking full account of flood risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations."

3. Footnote 16 of the NPPF refers to the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act (2008), including binding targets such as:

"...the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline."

4. Friends of the Earth has sought a legal opinion on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), Climate Change Act (2008) and NPPF in relation to this climate change duty that applies to plan- making.

5. The advice received makes it clear that when formulating local plans, planning authorities are duty bound to produce policies that contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. This requirement links to the tests of soundness referred to above3; specifically, that plans (taken as a whole) that do not include policies covering climate change mitigation and adaptation will lead to the plan being considered 'unsound'. Such plans cannot be considered "consistent with national policy"; linked to the delivery of sustainable development or "justified" in light of being the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.

6. FOE planners attended the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan Examination in Public (EiP) in November 2016. Following arguments made in relation to the Section 19 Duty (PCPA 2004), the Inspector agreed with our reasoning that Cumbria Policy DC 13 (Criteria for Energy Minerals) would be unsound4 without reference to climate change mitigation. Following EiP, the policy's wording includes such consideration as set out below:

Exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbons

Planning permission will be granted for proposals for exploration and appraisal of oil and gas resources provided that:

...c. the impacts of the development have been considered in relation to impact on climate change; and...5

...Commercial exploitation of hydrocarbons

Planning permission will be granted for proposals for commercial exploitation of oil and gas, provided that:

...e. the impact of the development has been considered in terms of contributing to the mitigation of climate change.
7. In addition to the Cumbria example, other adopted minerals plans also reference climate change mitigation as a consideration for hydrocarbon exploration and production. Policy DM2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Plan is explicit in targeting carbon emissions:

"...developments will be supported for minerals or waste developments where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mineral and waste planning authority, by the provision of appropriate information, that the proposals will, where appropriate, make a positive contribution to the: [from set of bullets] Reduction of carbon emissions6 [our bold]
8. Linked to the above examples and following further inquiry from FoE, PINS have now confirmed that they have amended their Examination Report template for use by all inspectors. This template will now:

"...include a specific reference to s19(1A) as a reminder to ensure that it has been considered and a reference included in the final report..."

9. It's worth noting also that in some recent Public Inquiries, PINS has considered the environmental effects of mineral extraction in light of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, PINS made a requirement for the developer of a proposed open cast coal mine to provide information as to greenhouse gas emissions arising from the burning of coal extracted from the project (re Highthorn)7.

10. In light of the above legal duty, mineral policy precedents set elsewhere (e.g. Cumbria MWLP and Lancashire MWLP), together with methodological updates from PINS, Nottinghamshire CC minerals policies should seek similar requirements with regards climate change. We believe this to be necessary for reasons of soundness and legal compliance as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

11. Forthcoming hydrocarbon policies are unlikely to be compliant with the Section 19(1A) Duty or the NPPF8, unless they are worded proactively, ensuring schemes: "contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change."9. While this may prove difficult in light of the weight put on mineral extraction, the tests of soundness explicitly state policies need to be consistent with and enable the delivery of sustainable development. The environmental dimension to sustainable development, as planners are fully aware, includes a range of environmental considerations which are relevant in the planning balance, as well as mineral extraction and the legal and policy requirements noted above. These should carry weight in sound policy formation going forward. Our view is that any unconventional oil/gas polices should adequately reflect this dimension.


Matter 2: Local Impacts

12. FoE have concerns regarding the local impacts of unconventional hydrocarbon extraction. Such impacts can relate to the health and wellbeing of residents, water and air quality, noise amenity, traffic movements and those arising from 24-hour operation from exploration, appraisal and extraction development stages. A separate fracking policy that considers such impacts is advisable to capture these and other impacts.

13. As has been demonstrated by existing fracking sites, it appears that some impacts remain unacceptable after development has commenced, despite the myriad of planning conditions set out to address adverse impacts and ensure these are made acceptable. It is also evident - based on research from two existing fracking sites in North Yorkshire and Lancashire - that the developers will seek to vary conditions once permission is given, where they perceive them to be "too restrictive" (including operational hours, drill rig heights, restoration timescales etc.). We would ask for supporting text that highlights the council will check the implementation of conditions and will take necessary enforcement action if they are not complied with. We consider adherence to such conditions to be essential in order for adverse impacts to be addressed. Moreover, it is important that over time developers do not come to view conditions as optional, rather than a requirement.

Air

14. Air quality impacts resulting from fracking developments have been shown to pose health risks at the local level. Until reliable British datasets become available, comparables from fracking sites outside the UK are required. Research from the University of Colorado10 documents a number of potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near to fracking wells, including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. Benzene has been identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a known carcinogen. In addition, further research suggests the practices linked to fracking exploration and appraisal, including use of diesel engines to power drilling rigs can lead to very fine diesel soot particles lodging deep within human lungs, significantly increasing health risks11. Planning Practice Guidance states that when considering air quality:

"It is important that the potential impact of new development on air quality is taken into account in planning where the national assessment indicates that relevant limits have been exceeded or are near the limit".12

15. With regard to air quality and new developments, the NPPF states that the planning system has a key role to play in:

"...preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability;"13

16. The potential for even moderate air quality impact is a key issue and very current within public discourse. The recent Client Earth High Court case is relevant14, resulting in the Government losing its case as the High Court recognised a failure to deliver objectives linked to the (supra-national) EU Air Quality Directive for London and other cities across the UK. This has been followed up more recently with the European Commission's issuing a final warning to the British Government over Air Quality breaches within cities across the UK, including Leeds, York, London, Hull and Southampton15. While such warnings may not include Nottinghamshire (yet), air quality is an ever- increasing issue and a realistic approach to air quality should be applied at fracking sites (especially linked to diesel particulates and fugitive emissions). This would ensure that relevant policies are robust and based on appropriate evidence and thus more likely to meet NPPF tests of soundness.

Noise

17. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states:

"...when developing noise limits, recognise that some noisy short-term activities, which may otherwise be regarded as unacceptable, are unavoidable to facilitate minerals extraction..." [our bold]

18. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF then suggests local authorities should:

"...ensure unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties"

19. The intensive 24-hour nature of exploratory and appraisal drilling is not a "noisy short term activity" as defined in national policy above. Compared to blasting works in a quarry that might last for a few seconds, fracking involves more perennial day and night time drilling activity, albeit over the medium term (5+ months at a time). Such continuous noisy activity can be detrimental to public health. Whether such schemes would abide with the above noise guidance applicable to aggregates is questionable. Any policy should reflect these concerns, and require they be fully addressed, rather than suggest a scheme's acceptability if such concerns can be minimised or mitigated to an acceptable level using conditions. Policy expectations should include requirements to "establish appropriate noise limits to extraction" as stated at paragraph 144, based on background noise monitoring and modelling methodologies that address all noises associated with site operation.

20. Noise is a particularly sensitive issue for unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, given that 24- hour drilling (for exploratory and appraisal sites) highlighted above is likely to lead levels significantly above ambient night-time limits allowed for types of development (such as wind turbines which are considered under a separate ETSU methodology). While fracking benefits from greater acceptable noise limits, it is often proposed in more remote rural areas with lower background night-time noise levels - increasing the potential of sleepless nights for local residents. The need to curb noise levels from fracking sites, both within policy formation and planning conditions cannot be highlighted enough, especially to protect local public health16.

21. Evidence however suggests that even with relevant planning conditions in place, the lack of in-house noise specialism (in allowing badly worded noise monitoring methodologies) has rendered relevant conditions (and ability to enforce) as ineffectual. For example, exploratory fracking allowed on appeal by the Secretary of State at Preston New Road (c/o Lancashire CC)17 included a requirement to stream 24-hour noise data to Lancashire County Council. The aim was to ensure absolute, hourly average and tonal noise limits were not exceeded from fracking activities coming "from the site".

22. The same authority then allowed a non-material amendment (NMA) for this site, which effectively enables 9 convoys of up to 30 HGVs to enter the fracking site at any time of the day or night over the next few development phases18, Justification was based on noise limits not having been breached previously when a convoy entered the site at 4am (in breach of operational hours). The noise methodology however "corrects" road noise with that from a proxy noise receptor, itself located away from the road. Essentially, overall noise limits aren't officially breached by HGVs (even at 3am) once "corrected" - representing disproportionate flexibility given to the developer when the conditions were discussed at appeal. The decision to allow HGVs to enter the site at any time will likely have deleterious consequences for local residents, despite strong community opposition because the minerals authority's ability to hold the developer to account has been hindered by a badly worded noise condition and subsequent correction methodology. Despite the detail, such circumstances should serve as food for thought for policy making going forward in Nottinghamshire, where the aim should be to have specific regard to noise impacts arising from delivery/construction/commercial vehicles coming to and leaving fracking sites, as well as noise from the site itself.

23. Additional evidence from other drilling sites also questions the ability of oil and gas developers to comply with noise conditions at certain stages of the development process. A separate exploratory drill site in Lancashire demonstrates that the operator was unable to comply with noise limits set for the plugging and abandonment of the well, with an application submitted (and granted) to vary this condition19, despite proximity to European protected sites.


Landscape and Visual Impact

24. Landscape and visual impact has been cited as a valid reason for refusal for fracking applications in other parts of England, again at Preston New Road, Lancashire20. Our view is that 24 hour lit drilling rigs and associated infrastructure for exploratory and appraisal phases (together with lower lying infrastructures) are highly industrialising developments within rural contexts.

25. While the Secretary of State overturned their claimed industrialising nature as a reason for refusal21, the visual impact was acknowledged and mitigated by requiring a substantial reduction in the height of the drilling rig to 36m (instead of planned 56m). This was done via a revised planning condition set by the Inspector. This represents mitigation against tangible landscape and visual impact concerns, and we would question the ability of developers to comply with such constraints, without first seeking to vary such conditions. In this context, but a different site, a non-material amendment was again received (and granted) by Lancashire County Council to increase the height of one of its restoration rigs by 30% (i.e. 22m to 33m)22 at an exploratory drilling site. Fracking operators seem happy to comply with stringent conditions to get approval, but incremental variations are undoubtedly likely follow suite once the principle of the development is officially consented.

26. Our view is that planning conditions should make developments acceptable but also be subject to rigorous enforcement. If conditions cannot be enforced, or it is obvious that a developer will not be able to comply, then the principle of the development must be brought into question in the first instance. In terms of landscape and visual impact compliance, forthcoming fracking policy should direct that all applications (EIA and non-EIA) include a robust Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - with due regard to appropriate industry methodology23 - to make it robust and justified.

Traffic

27. Fracking schemes bring with them potential for a significant increase in traffic movements, as well as risks to highway safety. Even with a traffic management plan in place, incidences of non-compliance are common; particularly for unconventional oil and gas developments24.

28. Fracking developments require numerous well pads; large volumes of flow-back water necessitating special offsite treatment and potential for fracked gas to all be transported via HGV/HCV. This translates into substantial increases in HGV movements, usually on rural road networks adjacent to fracking sites and to the detriment of highway safety (especially for those using non-car modes).

29. Despite the more abstract capacity of adopted highways to absorb such increases in trip generation, the cumulative capacity of smaller roads and relative impacts on the safety of non-car users requires careful consideration going forward; especially if the same roads are to be used by HGVs from multiple fracking sites. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states local authorities should ensure:

"...no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites".

30. The safety of highway users, including walkers and cyclists, should not be ignored, especially in a cumulative sense and in the more rural parts of the authority area. In many areas, pavements only exist within settlements; leading to the connecting roads in-between settlements being used by pedestrians, as well as HGVs. Overall, any policy approach should require robust transport assessments, to demonstrate with evidence not just additional HGV capacity is available, but that highway safety of a range of users will not be put at risk. Many highway authorities will simply rely on road accident statistics to suggest the acceptability of a scheme going forward, however such statistics are unlikely to factor in cumulative traffic impacts of fracking and perhaps a more in-depth qualitative approach is required to judge highway safety going forward.

Associated Local Impacts

31. Other non-direct impacts are also worthy of policy consideration. HGVs making deliveries to fracking sites may drive either through or near to an AQMA and consideration should be included within relevant policies going forward. Public Health England recently requested that silica mineral extraction in Cheshire East (and Cheshire West) demonstrate air quality impacts for HGVs travelling for Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) on route to site25. The recent submission version of the North Yorkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan - specifically Policy M17 - incudes such an allowance within its transport policies.26

32. The potential for fracking developments to impact on local landscape designations within other statutory development plans (such as Rushcliffe Borough) should also be recognised within fracking policies at the county level, such as recognised by the North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Joint Plan following representations by ourselves and other local groups:

In some parts of the Plan area affected by PEDLs (Petroleum Exploration and Development License), areas of locally important landscapes have been identified in District and Borough local plans. Where these continue to form part of the statutory development plan, and are relevant to a proposal which falls to be determined by North Yorkshire County Council as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, regard will be had to the requirements of any associated local plan policy.27

33. While positive, such wording should be included within the relevant fracking or landscape policy wording itself, gaining greater weight when applications are considered going forward for hydrocarbon developments. We would ask Notts. CC to factor in consideration for locally protected landscape designations in other district/borough plans within its future minerals policies.


Matter 3: Precautionary principle

34. Friends of the Earth considers that, in order to be consistent with national policy, forthcoming policies should require screening for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for all hydraulic fracturing proposals.

35. Row 2(e) of the Table in Para.1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 provides that surface industrial installations for the extraction of coal, petroleum, natural gas and ores and bituminous shale shall be considered 'Schedule 2 development' where the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare, triggering EIA screening where development is likely to introduce significant effects to the environment. It should be noted that this provision is not specifically particular to hydraulic fracturing projects.

36. Among safeguards introduced by the Infrastructure Act 2015 relating to onshore hydraulic fracturing, a new Section.4A was inserted into the Petroleum Act 1998 whereby the Secretary of State is not to grant a hydraulic fracturing consent unless satisfied that certain conditions have been met. s.4A(5) comprises a table setting out those conditions and the documents by which the Secretary of State may be satisfied that the condition is met. So far as is relevant, s.4A(5) provides that:

Column 1: conditions

1 The environmental impact of the development which includes the relevant well has been taken into account by the local planning authority

Column 2: documents

A notice given by the local planning authority that the environmental information was taken into account in deciding to grant the relevant planning permission

37. The Government's guidance document on s.4A replicates the above table, providing guidance in a third column, 28, which in relation to row no.1 cited above, provides as follows:

'The environmental impact of the development which includes the relevant well has been taken into account by the local planning authority. A notice given by the local planning authority that the environmental information was taken into account in deciding to grant the relevant planning permission The local planning authority (this is defined in section 4B to include the Secretary of State) is expected to provide a notice, copied to the Licensee, confirming that the environmental information was taken into account when it decided to grant the relevant planning permission. Licensees can provide BEIS with the notice as evidence of compliance with condition 1. We would expect the environmental information taken into account by the local planning authority to be in the form of an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Licensees can also provide a copy of the environmental statement which was provided to the local planning authority.' [our emphasis added]

38. In line with our submissions to previous consultations, the above Government guidance, in common with the broader approach under the 2015 Act, reflects the precautionary principle. Any forthcoming Minerals Plan should reflect this approach within its policy wording.


Matter 4: Surface and Sub-Surface Restrictions (non-fracking)

39. We would ask the plan-making authority to ensure adequate protection to be provided against all types of unconventional hydrocarbon development, including schemes utilising fluid amounts below the thresholds set out within legislation29 and policy30 for "protected areas" (re "associated hydraulic fracturing" or AHF).

40. Sound hydrocarbon policies aim should protect the surfaces of 'protected areas' (and indeed other sensitive designations and landscapes outside of such areas) from non-AHF development. For example, an unconventional drilling operation proposing the use of 999 m3 fluid at any stage (and less than 10,000 m3 fluid total) would fall outside of the AHF definition and be theoretically permitted (subject to other policy tests) within protected areas. Indeed, Friends of the Earth have objected to proposals in other parts of the England, due to very similar impacts to "hydraulic fracturing" developments.

41. One such proposal went to Public Inquiry in November 2017 after having been refused twice (following two separate applications) on water quality by North Lincolnshire Council31. The developers maintained the proposals did not meet the AHF thresholds and therefore associated risks to water quality (and other local impacts) were not comparable to hydraulic fracking. This "non-fracking" scheme however - in our view - presented almost identical landscape, water, noise, ecology and traffic impacts as an AHF scheme. For example, the scheme proposed the injection of a hydrochloric (mud) acid mix to form hydrofluoric acid deep underground, in order to "wash" the borehole and free up hydrocarbons. This acid mix was to be pumped 1800m down the well to:

"create hydrofluoric acid deep underground within the Ashover Grit and near wellbore area, and this reaction then dissolves the fine particles and solids that are blocking the natural pores of the rock, and blocking the perforations (holes) in the arising".32
42. Following the above process, a one-off proppant squeeze was then proposed, whereby tiny ceramic beads were to be injected into the ground at pressure to open up pores/fractures and prop them open to allow hydrocarbons to flow. The council centred their defence on risks to water quality (specifically linked to a local aquifer), stating despite appropriate permitting from the EA, the associated risk had not been satisfactorily mitigated. On the 4th January 2018, PINS dismissed the two appeals, citing that water quality was indeed a concern33, despite the scheme not officially being AHF, but a form of fracking.

43. Before the above PINS decision, mineral planning authorities might have been forgiven for thinking that non AHF proposals were unlikely to introduce similar levels of impact or concern as fracking schemes. National legislation, planning policy and guidance seem to be worded to suggest that "protected areas" should only be protected from AHF schemes, when in fact, almost identical risks are applicable to smaller proposals using either identical methods (or acidisation).

44. Our view is that local policy protections are needed against non-AHF proposals for these areas and also others without such protections. Notts.CC would be justified in ensuring its hydrocarbon policies attempted to capture the subtle variations of non AHF schemes oil and gas operators are beginning to use to get around surface and sub-surface constraints for AHF within legislation and OPPG34. While the Wressle proposal was not proposed in a protected area, it could well have been. Local policies should therefore replicate relevant protections in place for "protected areas" and AHF, to ensure local communities and their environments are better protected from non-AHF schemes - including those proposing acidisation.


Matter 4: Coal Phase Out

45. Coal fired power generation was currently the subject of a coal phase out announcement35 and consultation document36. Coal power generation is around 700-1000g CO2 p/Kwh and is therefore incompatible with the recommended CCC target of 100g CO2 per Kwh for electricity power generation by 2030. It is clear that the Government is setting a limit to coal-fired power generation, in light of the need to reduce climate changing emissions - which is inextricably linked to the burning of fossil fuels.

46. Government's response issued in January 2018 has reinforced this view, with unabated coal capacity limited to 1.3GW by 2025,"with all other unabated coal power stations taking closure decisions in the years ahead of that"37.

47. There is therefore a clear end-point in mind in government energy policy and a recognised decline in the need for coal. We would ask the council to have these considerations in mind when formulating coal extraction policy.

48. Finally, we would ask that the wording of paragraph 149 of the NPPF (subject to any review later this year) on coal extraction is also reflected in any forthcoming policies, namely:

"Permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or if not, it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. Matter 5: The Sustainability Appraisal"

Matter 5: Sustainability Appraisal


49. We have noted from consultations with other mineral Authorities that within their Sustainability Appraisals, the suggestion that shale gas production could lead to carbon savings (and therefore positive impact on SA), is an approach we find questionable when available evidence suggests that Government is not able to meet the Committee on Climate Change's (CCC) three tests38 that are required to justify shale gas production in the framework of current and future Carbon Budgets. The third of these tests states that "emissions from shale exploitation will need to be offset by emissions reductions in other areas of the economy to ensure UK carbon budgets are met".

50. Hydraulic fracturing - at any stage - is not considered compatible within the framework of these tests. Planning decisions made at the county level cannot secure any legal commitment to lower imports of natural gas (as suggested by test three). In addition, carbon capture and storage is in abeyance; there is insufficient understanding of methane leakage from fracking activities at its different stages (linked to the other two CCC tests)39; and subsidies for renewable energy have been scaled back (re reasonable alternatives). The potential for any positive impacts from fracking is doubtful and available evidence demonstrates that the approval of such fossil fuel extraction merely adds to the amount of fossil fuels extracted and that there is no displacement or substitution40 (as required by the CCC).

51. The MPA should bear the CCC's findings in mind when scoring for relevant hydrocarbon, but especially for unconventional hydrocarbon policies e.g. 'reducing climate change' objective with the SA.

52. Assuming the UK Government cannot meet the CCC's 3 tests, and when additional factors such as methane leakage41 and the burning of the extracted hydrocarbon are taken into consideration, our view is that likely impacts for the 'reducing climate change' objectives are more likely to be (as an example):

o "Higher negative effects on the achievement of the SA objective. For example, a significant negative contribution to an issue or receptor of more than local significance"
o "Uncertain impacts of the objective on the baseline".

Conclusion:

54. Overall, we would ask the plan-making team to take on board the majority of our concerns regarding:

- The climate change s19(1a) duty - ensuring mitigation and adaptation are accounted for in fracking policies;
- Provision of adequate protection from local impacts;
- The screening of all hydraulic fracturing schemes in line with the precautionary principle;
- Making suitable provision for non-AHF schemes in that they present similar risks to AHF developments, despite not being protected within current legislation or national policy and guidance;
- Coal phase-out: and policy reflecting recent government responses and national policy to ensure the plan's soundness; and
- Making sure the SA incorporates findings from evidence, especially that given by the CCC in terms of the three tests that are required to be passed should fracking be allowed to be rolled out across England and Wales;

Submission from Frack-free Nottinghamshire: Comments upon New Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan - Issues & Options Consultation (Jan 2018)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this additional review of the Minerals Plan (covering the period from 2020 to 2036). It is disappointing to note that so much previous work by council officers, mineral operators and other interested parties has been abandoned ahead of this repeat exercise - which it seems was solely at the whim of the incoming Council in 2017 and regardless of the considerable public expense.

These comments are written on behalf of Frack Free Nottinghamshire (FFN) which is part of a national movement that opposes unconventional hydrocarbon extraction by means of hydraulic fracking. It acts as an umbrella/support group for other more local frack-free campaign groups across the county. These comments are based on a briefing note presented to and approved by a meeting of FFN on 11th Dec 2017.

FFN took part in the previous consultation and will seek to repeat and enlarge upon its position as relayed in 2015-16. We regret that there was no reasonable attempt by the County Council to respond to our concerns raised then, and inadequate coverage of them in the Report of Consultation, resulting in no changes being made to the policy approach that became MP12.

The question in the Consultation most relevant to the control of fracking for hydrocarbons in Nottinghamshire is:

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

We urge the Plan to take into account the following points relating to unconventional hydrocarbons:
* Hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) of deep-lying shale rock to release gas is at odds with a legal requirement for Plan policies to reduce climate emissions (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s19(1A)). Methane is a fossil fuel whose use as an end product as well as its complex extraction process will inevitably generate carbon emissions and give rise to leakage of this most damaging of greenhouse gases.
* A separate policy is needed to highlight the wider uncertainties, especially the extent of community impacts, and the particular problems of scale associated with exploiting unconventional hydrocarbons. During the plan period, if companies such as Ineos and IGas are given permissions, it is conceivable that large parts of Notts could be turned into extensive gasfields - exploiting shale gas located in northern and south-west Notts and coal bed methane in eastern Notts.
* The risk of contamination of the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer should lead to a precautionary or minimal tolerance approach in order to safeguard crucial groundwater supplies and affected water courses from leakages that can occur when deep-drilling and pumping, and from surface spillage.
* The risk of earthquakes, compounding existing seismic risks from previous coalmining activities. NB.Tremors are already widely recorded in central Nottinghamshire. The biggest threat from earthquakes is damage well linings that would allow the leakage of toxic fluids and gases.

* The potential for industrialisation of the countryside if test drilling and initial fracking is successful in exploiting economic reserves of shale gas should be fully recognised by the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA). The process will give rise to a very different landscapes than conventional exploration since it involves highly intensive activity with wellpads spread over a wide area - note Ineos' briefing in a tender document showing up to 420 wells in each 10km square licence area (30 wellpads with up to 14 horizontal wells(drills?) from each wellpad. See: http://frackfreeryedale.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/05/INEOS-online-ad-for-Seismic-Survey-Contractor-06.05.16.pdf). This will require extensive infrastructure, especially roadways, pipelines, telecommunications etc as well as the wellpads themselves.
* Shale is not porous so the gas (and perhaps oil) that it contains does not flow to the well. To drain an extensive area it is necessary for fracturing to create artificial porosity which can only be achieved by locating well pads every few miles. Thus the scale of development can grow exponentially and will become physically prominent as well as environmentally damaging -which FFN insists should prompt a separate or fuller policy to afford proper protection to Nottinghamshire's affected communities.
* The intense activity generated by even a few wellpads can lead to widespread atmospheric pollution and a gasfield haze -caused by a 'cocktail' of ozone, BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene), and diesel fumes from heavy vehicles and generators which will include particulates and nitrogen dioxide. Clearly the venting of carcinogenic gases such as benzene and toluene, as well as radon which is radioactive, may be a direct threat to public health.
* Recent peer-reviewed studies in the USA and Australia have shown evidence of wide- ranging harm to the local environment and local health, most of which cannot be mitigated. See Background Information below.
* Large quantities of water will be required for fracking. Large quantities of toxic waste water will also be generated, possibly contaminated with 'naturally occurring radioactive material'. Both the source of such water and appropriate disposal facilities will need to be guaranteed - recognising the significant environmental harm that both will involve.
* There will be disruption to a number of employment sectors including farming and tourism
- almost certainly more jobs will be lost than the few local jobs that might be created in the fracking industry in compensation.
* The planning authority has a responsibility to check that other regulators will be able to do their job. Planning Practice Guidance (Reference ID: 27-112-20140306) advises that : "before granting planning permission, MPAs will need to be satisfied that these issues can or will be adequately addressed by taking the advice from the relevant regulatory body: ...Mitigation of seismic risks...Well design and construction...Well integrity during operation...Operation of surface equipment on the well pad...Mining waste...Chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluid...Flaring or venting...Final off-site disposal of water...Well decommissioning/abandonment..."
Planning conditions should be used to ensure these issues are adequately addressed, particularly to protect ground and surface water and to minimise the impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.
* The business risks involved in fracking are considerable. The MPA should not assume that companies will be viable enough to take responsibility for any long term problems which may be caused, recognising that:

a) fracking companies all over the world have had difficulty making profits, including in the USA, and a history of losses and capital restructurings among the shale gas operators like IGas;
b) the capital costs of fracking/developing unconventional gas fields are high and many of the companies involved are highly indebted - there being a doubt that they would be able to operate at all were it not for low interest rates/quantitative easing in the USA and the UK. Also, to avoid legal or planning enforcement action, companies have been known to sell their remaining assets (and with them their responsibilities for cleaning up sites) onto smaller companies that then go bankrupt;
c) fracking companies in other countries have used a way of dumping their financial problems onto the public purse by abandoning sites, and there is every reason to suspect that this would occur in the UK and Nottinghamshire too;
d) the size of companies is no guarantee of their future solidity - for example, although Ineos is a very big company, its bonds are rated "Ba3/BB" - "... a bond rate which is generally considered speculative in nature and not considered to be investment- grade bonds suited for people wishing to avoid the risk of losing their principal."
FFN believes that the County Council should be guided in its plan-making by the approach adopted in the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Joint Plan. In particular, we recommend that the North Yorks definition* of 'hydraulic fracturing' and 'unconventional hydrocarbons' is used and that its more comprehensive policies covering hydrocarbon development be regarded as an exemplar. *See https://www.northyorks.gov.uk Publication Draft para.5.119
Although this is an early stage of the planning process, FFN urges the MPA to challenge the English Government's highly supportive approach to the extraction of shale gas by unconventional methods. Instead it should develop a more independent policy which, mindful of the climate crisis and the severe adverse impacts that fracking can inflict upon the county, treats proposals for increasing fossil fuel dependency with extreme suspicion. It should bear in mind that, after comprehensive studies in Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Germany and New York State (to name a few), fracking has been banned or subject to indefinite moratoria. See Background Information below.
Thus we would recommend that the policy requires applicants to demonstrate beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that the risks of provoking seismic activity, disturbing the natural environment and causing damage to air/water/landscape quality as well as to human health and business viability, can all be eliminated. This should apply to exploratory operations as well as full scale extraction, and place a duty on the applicant to show that the proposal will not release significant emissions of greenhouse gases and can be supported by a sizeable public insurance bond in case of a major pollution incident or abandonment prior to the satisfactory completion of restoration measures.

Q25: Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?
FFN believes it is important that criteria to define the 'acceptability of adverse impact' upon communities/ecosystems etc for many of the development management policy topics is set out in the Plan. This will allow some thresholds to be established and the interpretation of 'acceptability' by different regulatory bodies or committees or individual officers to be less variable. In addition, we propose another topic which should surely target 'the risk of releasing greenhouse gases' if the aim of tackling climate change effectively is to be met.


Some Background information

* The State of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation considered the available information on potential environmental impacts of high-volume hydraulic fracturing and possible mitigation measures and concluded (in June 2015): "In the end, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives that would adequately avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and that address the scientific uncertainties and risks to public health from this activity. The Department's chosen alternative to prohibit high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the best alternative based on the balance between protection of the environment and public health and economic and social considerations." (2015 SEQR Findings Statement, page
42: www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html )

* UK government policy and guidance on high-volume hydraulic fracturing is based on out of date research, such as the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering review (July 2012) and a report by Public Health England (although this was published in June 2014 it was not significantly changed from a 2013 draft which was based on evidence available upto 2012). This ignores more than 80% of the peer reviewed scientific literature on the environmental and health impacts of shale gas development which has been published since 2012: www.psehealthyenergy.org/our-work/shale-gas-research-library/

* And only one out of 10 recommendations of the RS/RAE review had been implemented in full after 2 years: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140- 6736(14)60888-6/fulltext

* Definition of site boundary must include (in 3-D) the full extent of any horizontal drilling underground. (As required by Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s55(1) which defines "development" to include "... building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land ...")

* The Water Framework Directive requires a precautionary approach, particularly to protect groundwater from all contamination (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water- framework/info/intro_en.htm). Particular care will be required to protect Sherwood sandstone aquifers used for drinking water and agriculture, and particularly in the former coal mining areas which are already subject to minor earthquakes.

* Regulatory failures include a failure by the Environment Agency(EA) to prevent Cuadrilla from dumping fracking wastewater from Preese Hall (containing radioactivity) into the Manchester Ship Canal. And Michael Hill, an engineer involved in Cuadrilla's fracking at Preese Hall, tells us that "the only well to have been fracked in the UK suffered an integrity failure that the HSE were not aware of for up to 3 years, suffered damage to the casing due to unpredicted induced seismicity caused by the fracking, which neither HSE nor the DECC were aware of for over 12 months, was never inspected once by the HSE for well integrity, which may or may not have leaked into the surrounding formations (we do not know because the EA have not checked) and which has now been
abandoned." http://media.wix.com/ugd/b0aabf_5902a55b06fd4338a56db38dd8687240.p df

* A review of evidence on regulation by Watterson & Dinan of Stirling University (October

2016) concluded (http://www.regulatingscotland.org/report/frackingandregulation.pdf):

(1) the evidence base for robust regulation and good industry practice is currently absent. There are multiple serious challenges surrounding location, scale, monitoring and data deficits facing regulators overseeing onshore UGE and fracking in the UK;
(2) the evidence from peer-reviewed papers suggests fracking in the UK will not be effectively regulated. It is highly likely that regulatory agencies may lack the staffing and resources necessary to monitor and enforce effective regulation of the industry;
(3) US and UK peer-reviewed analyses and EU law identify both the precautionary principle and prevention as keys to dealing with fracking. This is underpinned by findings from the peer-reviewed public health literature that already identifies significant hazards and major potential risks from the industry.

* A number of countries have banned fracking or introduced moratoriums, including Scotland: www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11127&i=101486

* Underground coal gasification should not be permitted. This technology has been tried in the 1950s in the UK - prompting questions in Parliament about 'noxious fumes over a wide area': http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1955/nov/28/underground- gasification-experiments More recently a pilot facility operated in Queensland Australia by Cougar Energy was shut down due to potentially carcinogenic pollution including benzene and toluene emissions. Another UCG facility operated by Linc Energy was found to have contaminated hundreds of square kilometres of agricultural land in South East Queensland: www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-10/linc-energy-secret-report-reveals- toxic-chemical-risk/6681740 Gasification of coal is the process which used to be operated at gas works and coking works. In many cases the resulting contamination is still being cleared up.
* The most comprehensive review of peer reviewed studies on the impacts of fracking has been produced by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York. The fourth edition dated November 2016 (http://concernedhealthny.org) lists the following emerging trends:
1) regulations are not capable of preventing harm
2) fracking threatens drinking water
3) emissions contribute to toxic air pollution and smog (ground-level ozone)
4) public health problems, including occupational health and safety, are increasingly well documented
5) natural gas is a bigger threat to the climate than previously believed
6) earthquakes are a consequence in many locations
7) fracking infrastructure poses serious potential exposure risks for both workers and residents, including exposure to 'naturally occurring radioactive materials'
8) risks in California could be affecting food crops
9) economic instabilities of fracking further exacerbate public health risks
10) fracking raises issues of environmental justice
11) health care professionals are increasingly calling for bans or moratoria until the full range of potential health hazards from fracking are understood.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 These representations have been submitted by Barton Willmore LLP ("Barton Willmore") on behalf of Egdon Resources U.K. Limited (hereafter referred to as "Egdon") in response to Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC's) Issues and Options Consultation on the new Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The aim of these representations is to assist the Council in formulating an appropriate planning framework in respect of mineral development within the County of Nottinghamshire.

1.2 Edgon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Egdon Resources PLC, a public company with shares traded on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange in London. Egdon is engaged in the exploration and production of oil and gas resources in the UK and France. Egdon has been a participator in licence interests since 1997 and a successful operator since 2002.

1.3 Within the County of Nottinghamshire, Egdon currently holds interests in the following licences:

PEDL001 PEDL118 PEDL130 PEDL139 PEDL140 PEDL201 PEDL202 PEDL203 PEDL305 PEDL306 PEDL316

1.4 Under the provisions of the Petroleum Regulations, the Oil and Gas Authority grants the exclusive rights to "search, bore for and get petroleum" within the boundaries of the licence.

1.5 In view of the above, the aim of this document is to assist the Council in formulating their Local Plan, having particular regard to hydrocarbons provision, which potentially has a direct impact on Egdon's future operations. A positive planning policy framework is therefore considered essential to the delivery of both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon resources.


1.6 We have set out below Egdon's response to the Issues and Options Consultation. We would be happy to discuss these representations in more detail if this would be of assistance to the Council.

2.0 QUESTION 24 - ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ISSUES RELATING TO HYDROCARBON EXTRACTION THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN REVIEW?

National Need

2.1 Although there has been considerable investment in renewable energy sources, following the adoption of the Climate Change Act 2008, there is a still a need for energy generation from fossil fuel sources to support the UK moving towards a low carbon economy.

2.2 The UK Oil and Gas Authority has shown that although the demand for oil has decreased, a trend that is predicted to continue, the demand for imported oil has increased owing to continuing decline in North Sea oil production.

2.3 In 2015, around 40% of the UK oil demand was made up of net imports. Projections by the Oil and Gas Authority suggest net imports could increase by 70% by 2030. The Committee on Climate Change, an independent, statutory body has estimated that even based upon a low oil price of £40 a barrel, the UK will need to spend £11 billion each year importing oil by 2030.

Role of Onshore Reserves

2.4 The Written Ministerial Statement on Shale Gas and Oil Policy (HLWS195), published by the former Department for Energy and Climate Change in September 2015, highlighted that events around the world demonstrate how dangerous it can be to assume that the UK will continue to rely on existing sources of supply.

2.5 For the reasons stated above, it is clear that 'security of energy supply' is a key issue for the UK, which will affect all localities. Ensuring that the UK's indigenous resources are used to their potential plays an essential part in delivering this security, providing a reliable supply and reducing the need for imported energy.

2.6 Onshore production makes a modest but important contribution to supply with the additional advantage of proximity to demand. Furthermore, the capital expenditure required to develop onshore production sites is much smaller and therefore, they continue to provide economically attractive targets.

National Planning Policy

N ational P lanning P o l i cy Fram ew ork

2.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and sets out the Government's requirements for the planning system. The principle objective of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is seen as a 'golden thread' running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

Facilitating the sustainable use of m inerals

2.8 Paragraph 142 of the NPPF concerns the importance of minerals and states:

"Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since materials are a finite resource and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure long-term conservation."

2.9 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF provides guidance to Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs), such as NCC, when determining planning applications for mineral extraction. When drafting policy, therefore, NCC should:

* "Give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy;"

Planning Practice Guidance

2.10 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is a web-based resource that was published on 6 March 2014 by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The PPG brings together planning practice guidance for England in an accessible and useable way.

M inerals P P G

2.11 The Minerals PPG provides guidance on the planning for mineral extraction in the plan- making and the application process.

2.12 Paragraph 012 sets out the relationship between planning and other regulatory regimes. It notes:

"The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest...this includes ensuring that new development is appropriate for its location - taking account of the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution."

2.13 Paragraph 124 states that account should be taken of national energy policy, making clear "energy supplies should come from a variety of sources" including onshore oil and gas as set out in the Annual Energy Statement (October 2013).

2.14 Paragraph 125 states that MPAs:

"Should use appropriate planning conditions, having regard to the issues for which they have responsibility, to mitigate against any adverse environmental impact."

2.15 This paragraph shows that national planning policy supports hydrocarbon extraction and that MPAs should seek to grant planning permission, while reducing the potential environmental impacts through conditions rather than refusing the application.

Hydrocarbons Provision in New Local Plan for Nottinghamshire County Council

2.16 In May 2017 Nottinghamshire County Council withdrew its emerging Minerals Local Plan. This withdrawn Local Plan included a hydrocarbon minerals policy (Policy MP12) which stated:

"Exploration

1. Proposals for hydrocarbon exploration will be supported provided they do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity.

Appraisal

2. Where hydrocarbons are discovered, proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted, provided that they are consistent with an overall scheme for the appraisal and delineation of the resource and do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity.

Extraction

3. Proposal for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource and do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity.

Restoration

4. All applications for hydrocarbon development will be accompanied with details of how the site will be restored once the development is no longer required."

2.17 In its representations previously made to the Council, Egdon broadly supported this policy as it provided a positive approach to the extraction of hydrocarbon minerals in Nottinghamshire. Egdon particularly welcomed the criteria-based approach which the policy adopted to ensure that activities related to the exploration, appraisal and production of oil and gas and unconventional hydrocarbons take place in an environmentally acceptable manner.

2.18 This policy was in accordance with both national policy and national planning policy. Egdon welcomed that fact that the Council recognised that they should give weight to the benefits of mineral extraction and that it took a broadly positive stance subject to the necessary environmental safeguards.

2.19 Egdon also supported the approach taken by the previous policy, which did distinguish between conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon development. Given that there are potential shale gas deposits in Nottinghamshire, it is important to consider both

conventional and unconventional extraction but not differentiate between the two. Therefore, Egdon considers that, as before, one hydrocarbon policy is sufficient for all types of hydrocarbon development.

2.20 Future policy should keep this positive stance to mineral extraction and make use of planning conditions to mitigate against any adverse impacts. This would be in accordance with national planning policy and national energy policy.

2.21 The Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan was adopted in June 2016. Policy M9: Energy Minerals states:

"Planning permission will be granted for exploration, appraisal and/or production of conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons provided that proposals accord with all relevant Development Management Policies set out in the Plan."

2.22 This policy was accepted by the Inspector as a criteria-based policy which seeks to ensure that activities relating to all phases of both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon development are carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner. It provides an effective means of managing hydrocarbon development in accordance with national planning policy.

2.23 Therefore, in response to question 24 of NCC's Issues and Options Consultation Document, Egdon considers that the wording of a concise policy, such as Policy MP12 in the withdrawn Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan would be in accordance with national energy policy and national planning policy.



3.0 CONCLUSION

3.1 In conclusion, Edgon considers that a single criteria-based policy which covers exploration, appraisal and production stages of both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons and would be justified in the new Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The wording of Policy MP12 in the Local Plan that was withdrawn last would be supported.

3.2 This concise, supportive approach to the exploration, appraisal and production of hydrocarbons can be found in the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan adopted in June 2016.

3.3 Given that both national energy policy and national planning policy are supportive of hydrocarbon extraction, subject to the appropriate environmental standards, Egdon considers that NCC's new Local Plan broadly accords with Policy MP12.

Question 24 (in http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/127419/issues-options-2017.pdf )

(1) Economics of Unconventional oil and gas

On page 35 of the Issues and options paper about the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan there is a claim that

"Vast quantities of methane exist in many shale deposits worldwide and recent technological advances have now made it economically possible to exploit them."

In fact one of the most noteworthy features of efforts to tap shale oil and shale gas has been that it has rarely been possible to exploit them economically. This is even if one illegitimately defines "economic" in a way that ignores negative impacts to the environment and public health (which in economic theory are called "external environmental costs").

Even with a definition of "economic" that is purely commercial, and only counts private costs and benefits to the fracking companies, the experience in multiple countries, including the USA has been that fracking is loss making. Thus fracking has been abandoned as uneconomic in Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In other countries outside Europe too profitability( "economic gas fields") have proved illusive.

There is a reason. Unconventional oil and gas fields have much higher costs than conventional ones. Tapping "conventional" oil and gas from permeable geological strata is cheaper in that the oil and gas flows underground and can be pumped out with less engineering. In contrast an "unconventional gas or oil field" has to release the gas from impermeable rock and therefore needs up to 100 more wells for the same amount of gas (or oil). A field must achieve economies of scale to have any chance of making a profit. It needs more activity underground to fracture the rock and it needs more activity on the surface to facilitate that. That is why it is more dangerous to the environment and public health - and also why it is more financially expensive. It requires more ongoing capital equipment too. Without a high gas (or oil ) price all of these activities cannot be made profitable.

To be long term viable the fracking sector requires three things: favourable geology, high oil and gas prices and easy and cheap credit. All three have proven elusive, making for disappointing results in all of the locations around the world where it has been tried. Unconventional gas is struggling to get off the ground outside of the USA and Australia. And in the USA, where it started, although it managed to get the credit to pay for the capital expenditure there are now grave doubts that a mountain of credit will ever be paid back. There are now many mainstream analyses saying this in the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes...and myself too!

https://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21719436-exploration-and-production-companies- are-poised-go-another-investment-spree-americas

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-streets-fracking-frenzy-runs-dry-as-profits-fail-to-materialize- 1512577420

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2017/08/11/this-is-what-the-end-of-shale-will-look- like/#96241e55a055

http://www.credoeconomics.com/shale-euphoria-the-boom-and-bust-of-sub-prime-oil-and-natural-gas/

Meanwhile in the UK doubts about the profitability of shale gas development also mean that very few investors are prepared to put up money

http://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2017/08/12/the-shale-revolution-ends-with-a-bang/

None of these basic facts are to be found in the issues and options paper yet they are absolutely central. For example to discuss unconventional gas (or oil) extraction without discussing the high likelihood that it will not be profitable - as well as missing out a mention that the condition of profitability is that the industry must operate at a very high scale - is to miss out the most important features.

(2) Consequences of scale and precarity of this industry

It is one thing to have an industry with a handfull of wells throughout the county all of which are comfortably covering their costs - it is quite another to talk about an industry with hundreds, perhaps thousands of wells which are operating under conditions of marginal profitability or of negative cash flow, losses and rising debt.

Let us say there is a 5% chance that each well fails or has a spill that pollutes the water table. With a few wells that is a risk one might make - especially if the industry has the money from profits to pay for a clean up. If there are hundreds of wells and a 5% chance that each well fails AND if the industry is making a loss and is in negative cash flow there is a very different situation. Not only will several pollution incidents be almost inevitable but the companies will be reluctant to spend money being careful about how they operate, they will be likely to cut corners on safety to cut costs. Further, when fails and spils occur the companies will not be in a position to afford the clear up. This is no matter how much government and politicians try to kid themselves that the Environment Agency and the HSE are on top of the situation.

I realise that it is conventional in planning decisions to have a presumption in favour of development. However development is supposed to be "sustainable development" and what has been described above is an unsustainable development. Indeed is is uneconomic development where costs exceed benefits. This is very clear - the balance of available scientific evidence based on repeated experience of hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas development around the world has demonstrated adverse impacts on the quality and quantity of water resources, including groundwater and water courses; on air quality (including through emissions of methane and sulphur); on seismic activity; on local communities; and on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The government and industry repeatedly claims otherwise on the basis of studies that are now at least 5 years out of date, ignoring literally hundreds of academic studies in the meantime. For a peer reviewed review of the academic literature between 2009 and 2015 see https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Literature-Review-2009-2015.pdf

The balance of evidence in the UK also demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive are NOT capable of effectively regulating this industry and making it safe. Over several years of exploratory activity there have been multiple failures and breaches of the regulations that do not augur well for the future. Nor has the Oil and Gas Agency effectively kept track of firms like IGas which have repeatedly failed to meet OGA criteria for financial stability.

https://drillordrop.com/2017/09/21/guest-post-by-jon-and-val-mager-why-the-government-must-block- fracking-based-on-what-we-learned-about-regulation-of-the-km8-site/

(3) Climate Change

Then there is climate change. Astonishingly pages 34-37 on hydrocarbons do not mention climate change as an issue. This is despite the fact that we have an issue of more CO2 being generated when oil and gas extracted are burned as well as the fact that fugitive methane emissions are recognised as a serious problem with unconventional gas extraction. It is also despite the fact that the government's own advisers have issued a view on the matter of the development of unconventional gas. In fact the Committee on Climate Change has said that shale gas would only be compatible with Britain's climate targets for greenhouse gas emissions if 3 tests are met.

These three tests are: (1) Methane leaks (fugitive emissions) can be controlled. (2) Gas consumption must remain in line with carbon budgets requirements. UK shale gas production must displace imported gas rather than increasing domestic consumption. (3) Accommodating shale gas production emissions within carbon budgets. Additional production emissions from shale gas wells will need to be offset through reductions elsewhere in the UK economy.

Under current conditions there are no policies to achieve these conditions and there is no way the planning committee can ensure that they are achieved either. (Achievability would requires administrative and regulatory competence and robustness AND it would require the existence of technological measures and economic capacity to install and operate mitigation strategies. None of these currently exist.)

Furthermore, as regards test 2 whereby UK shale gas production must displace imported gas, what is to stop the gas that would have been imported be re-routed, sold and then burned somewhere else in the world. Of course the UK has no powers to prevent this displaced gas being burned elsewhere so we are talking about a policy fig leaf and a fiction. The fact is that any shale gas extracted in the UK would be additional to what is being produced elsewhere whether or not Britain's carbon budget were met or not. Britain might still be meeting its national carbon budgets but it would be helping undermine the global carbon effort and stoking the global warming.

(4) In conclusion

Finally the evidence of unconventional gas development globally has been that unconventional gas development is rarely commercially economic, is short term and is unsustainable even on narrow conventional criteria. The industry in the USA and elsewhere has accumulated large debts and persistent negative cash flows that are only possible given very low interest rates and a finance sector more interested in earning fees by raising cash, than acting responsibly by ensuring that the industry for which it is acting actually has a credible future. The industry in the USA has been funded on a Ponzi basis and, as such, will eventually collapse leaving the clear up to the public purse. Even if one accepts a presumption in favour of development (which I personally do not ) it is supposed to be for sustainable development and shale gas is not even a commercially sustainable industry. While is not usually a matter for planning authorities to assess the commercial viabilities of industries Notts County Council will certainly pick up the bill for setting things right if and when it allows this industry to go ahead and later has to clear up the wasteland when the companies have taken what money they were able to and gone.