Table 1: Key messages from the document review

Comment

Representation ID: 30380

Received: 14/01/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Proposal for amendments to and additions to Key Messages (Question 4), and where appropriate proposed amendments and additions to the SA objectives (Question 5), covering most topic areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 30411

Received: 14/01/2018

Respondent: Miss Sonya Ward

The document mentions that 'Two sites have also been granted permission for exploratory boreholes to be worked to investigate their suitability for hydraulically fractured shale gas extraction' however, the literature review omits any evidence regarding the safety and potential environmental risks of fracking, such as the House of Commons document 'Environmental Risks of Fracking' (HC 856, published 26th January 2015)

Comment

Representation ID: 30531

Received: 12/01/2018

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Landscape and Countryside

"listed parks and gardens" amend to "listed parks and gardens and their settings"
Landscape Character Areas. These are too widely drawn and generalised. A finer level of detail is required including provision for taking account of local knowledge.

"landscape quality and character" amend to "landscape quality and character and associated amenity value and tranquility"

Comment

Representation ID: 30563

Received: 13/01/2018

Respondent: Historic England (East Midlands)

Agent: Historic England (East Midlands)

Q3 Response- Additional relevant information in respect of the historic environment should be included (Appendix 1).

Implications for the plan section doesn't include Roman settlement near Mansfield or the Neanderthal Creswell Crags (Palaeolithic site).

Q4 Response- It is recommended that Historic and cultural heritage key messages be revisited to extend the scope and address wording/content issues.

In current form, the key messages do not adequately reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets and their setting nor impact on significance or harm.

Q5 Response- The current wording is insufficient to assist the Plan to move forward on a robust and sound base.

Comment

Representation ID: 30591

Received: 12/01/2018

Respondent: Michael Bassey

Q4. Have the key messages from the documents review been correctly identified in Table 1? If not, what should be added, amended or deleted?

What is missing is any account of what quantities of minerals may be required over the next 15-20 years that the report covers. I suggest this should be fundamental to the report.

In Table 5 the first item is "Ensure that adequate provision is made to meet local and national mineral demand." How can it get a tick in the "economic" box when it is not clear how much will be required?

Comment

Representation ID: 30592

Received: 12/01/2018

Respondent: Michael Bassey

Q5. Have the implications for the SA framework been accurately assessed in Table 1? If not, what should be added, amended or deleted?

Amendments proposed to Table 1 'key messages' sections air quality, health and sustainable communities (see full representation for detail).

Comment

Representation ID: 30598

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

Q4. Have the key messages from the documents review been correctly identified in Table 1? If not, what should be added, amended or deleted?

Under the heading Minerals Key Messages the order and emphasis should be changed (see full representation for detail).

Under the heading of Economy and Employment Key messages the order and emphasis should be changed (see full representation for detail).

Comment

Representation ID: 30599

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

Q5. Have the implications for the SA framework been accurately assessed in Table 1. If not, what should be added, amended or deleted?

Please see response to Question 4.