Table 4: Proposed SA Objectives, decision making criteria and proposed indicators

Comment

Representation ID: 30388

Received: 14/01/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Question 13 - Decision-making criteria and proposed indicators. Amendments to criteria and indicators are proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 30536

Received: 12/01/2018

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

Suggested amendments to Table 4 Points 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 (see full representation).

Comment

Representation ID: 30541

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Brett Aggregates Limited

Table 4, amendments proposed to objectives 1, 5, 7, 8 and 11, see full representation for detail.

Comment

Representation ID: 30569

Received: 13/01/2018

Respondent: Historic England (East Midlands)

Agent: Historic England (East Midlands)

Q13 response- Objective 4 decision making criteria 'have an adverse impact upon' wording should be replaced with 'cause harm to' and add a separate sentence 'Can any such harm be mitigated against?' 'SAM' should be amended to 'SM' in line with current terminology. It is not clear why Conservation Areas are included in the indicators for Objective 5 Townscape and landscape since they are heritage assets of national importance. If suggestions earlier in this response are taken on board it would be worth reviewing whether the CA's issue would fit better in the Objective 4 section.

Comment

Representation ID: 30594

Received: 12/01/2018

Respondent: Michael Bassey

Q12. Do the SA objectives adequately cover the sustainability issues which are relevant to the Minerals Local Plan? If not, what amendments are required?

I am concerned at item 14 of Table 4 which sees an "indicator" of human health and quality of life as "Number of properties within 250m of mineral working proposals". I suggest this should be 2500m - and I would want the answer to be "none".

Comment

Representation ID: 30628

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

Q13. Are the decision-making criteria and proposed indicators appropriate? If not, what amendments are required?

Change and amend Objectives 1, 3, 7, 8 and 13 (see full representation for detail).

Comment

Representation ID: 30638

Received: 12/01/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Q13. The decision-making criteria is generally welcome. It is important that indicators relate to the effects of the plan. Bespoke indicators should relate to outcomes of development management decisions. The following indicators may be appropriate:
Biodiversity:
* Number of planning approvals that generated any adverse impacts on sites of acknowledged biodiversity importance.
* Percentage of major developments generating overall biodiversity enhancement.
* Hectares of biodiversity habitat delivered through minerals site allocations.
Green infrastructure:
* Percentage of population having access to natural greenspace within 400 metres of homes.
* Length of greenways constructed.
* Accessible open space (Ha) per 1000 population

Comment

Representation ID: 30641

Received: 10/01/2018

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Weighting of SA objectives should be explained and how these will be used to assess the Plan policies and any sites. Currently SA Objectives are heavily weighted to potential environmental effect. However, economic and social facets of sustainability are critical elements. As well as providing an 'adequate' amount, the SA has failed to take account of the need to plan for a 'steady and adequate' supply of aggregate (paragraph 145). There is a requirement to recognise that as well as ensuring they have a sufficient land bank of resource that the Plan maintains aggregate provision across the whole Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 30643

Received: 10/01/2018

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Table 4

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