Question 2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

The Revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018. Although the Minerals Plan was published too late to include a reference to the new NPPF it will be necessary to include references to the new document wherever necessary in the next draft of the emerging plan. After reviewing the new NPPF and policies of the Minerals Plan it appears that the two are very well aligned and no significant discrepancies are apparent.

The Revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018. Although the Minerals Plan was published before the new NPPF it will be necessary to include references to the new document wherever necessary in the next draft of the emerging plan. After reviewing the new NPPF and policies of the Minerals Plan it appears that the two are very well aligned and no significant discrepancies are apparent.

Amended representation (please delete previous version)

NSDC is supportive.

The draft policy is soundly based and strongly supported by Coddington Parish Council.

We agree with this draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Support

No comment

We fully support Policy SP1

Clearly I approve of sustainable development but as a resident of Burton Joyce would emphasis point 3.6 regarding flood risk to the area. With excessive rain earlier this year, I have, at close hand, seen how susceptible the area around Burton Joyce station to flooding.
I would therefore strongly suggest that no further plans are approved that may exacerbate an already fragile ecosystem.

The principle of the policy is welcomed however Material Considerations is ambiguous and requires further clarification to prevent misuse or being used as a mechanism to stifle development

There is far too little mention of preservation of biodiversity, reducing carbon impact and maintaining current green spaces. An absolute commitment to proper biological surveys with summary dismissal of any plans that disrupt areas found to be of biological importance must be shown if the council wishes to demonstrate that they are adequately exercising their moral duty to protect the environment and preserve biodiversity.

Local plans that reject fracking outright would be in harmony with the national objective that supports transition to a low carbon economy. A problem arises where the government of the day has a policy to support fracking, which contradicts this. They may, by selectively using their supporting scientists, make a case to disagree with this evaluation but the case would not be taken seriously outside of the oil and gas lobby. The present county guidance critically does not distinguish between power-source minerals and other types, which in light of the transition process is I think a mistake.

CAGE supports sustainable development but feels that not enough weight is given to the views of local people when assessing 'material benefits and considerations'. Too often the benefits are accrued away from the development whilst the burdens fall most heavily on local communities. Quarry lifetimes, although described as 'temporary', are often long in the lifespans of people.

In the draft MLP Interim Sustainability Report (July 2018), the scoring scheme gives positive additions to sites of large resources and economic benefit. There are no negative score additions for loss of a larger area of best and most valuable agricultural land, for long duration of nuisance or for high numbers of residents within 250m or 500m. A new negative score addition has been introduced for greenbelts, which unfairly promotes sites in the Newark area to the disadvantage of the area and its residents.

Preface
This Council made submissions at the previous stage, "Issues and Options," in this process of producing the final Plan. We find that some issues we addressed at that stage have been included in the Draft Plan in a way we agree with, and some not. This Submission will refer to such points of agreement or disagreement again as they arise.

None of the sites proposed in this Draft is sufficiently close to Burton Joyce for this Council to have any direct comment on the suitability of them so we address only the general principles. However, identification of sites should not be done in isolation from the expected effects of anticipated infrastructure, commercial and housing developments in the areas concerned. The issues raised in the section concerning sand and gravel, since that mineral resource is the one relevant to the whole of this part of the Trent Vale, and we wish to see such principles applied to each site to be considered. Questions from number 12 onward are not addressed in this submission.

Where we refer to the NPPF, we refer to the draft version, on the assumption that, so far as it is relevant to the point we are considering, the final version will reflect the current draft.

Q.1 the draft vision and strategic objectives
The listed policy points on p.13 are generally acceptable, with the significant exception of the 8th point. Nearness of mineral quarrying sites to end-use sites is of value to the commercial producers since transport costs are a significant element, but the Planning process must take account of those costs to the resident population and to local authorities which are not entered into commercial accounts. There is an inherent conflict within the NPPF between the need for a reliable supply of minerals and the need to take account of flood risks, particularly in light of anticipated climate change, predictions for which are more serious now than they were even in the initial stages of the drafting of this Plan. We also point out that closeness of an extraction site to the market is not the only measure of reducing transport costs, since the better-developed transport network on the Western side of the County may still make a longer journey a faster and cheaper one than adding vehicles to an already inadequate and congested road system. New building areas are most likely to be in logical places for population growth, which will already be places of relatively high density population. Such places will therefore suffer the worst damage from air pollution, noise, traffic congestion and dangers, loss of environment and amenity, and additional flood risk. More remote extraction sites result superficially in some extra cost only because the workings themselves do not take into account the very real cost to the residents and authorities. We happily accept the emphasis laid on biodiversity. However we strongly reject any suggestion that the destruction of farmland to be replaced by even more areas of stagnant open water is anything but harmful to biodiversity in the Trent Vale region.

Q2 sustainable development
We accept the principles in this section of the draft, and would lay particular emphasis on paragraph 3(a) in SP1. In the Trent Vale region there will be very many cases where the costs of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit; not necessarily from the development itself, in the form of new buildings and infrastructure, but in terms highly relevant to this Draft Minerals local Plan, the cost to communities of extraction works. We also point out that one aspect of a low-carbon economy, referred to in paragraph 3.6 of the Justification to this section, should imply a low-concrete economy, as set out more fully in answer to Question 5.

Q3 Strategic Policy for Minerals Provision
We agree with the principles set out in SP2. In particular we approve of the priority being given to extension of existing sites over the development of new sites, and wish to emphasise the second paragraph in SP2, the need for avoidance of the damage of development of new sites.



Q4 Bio-diversity-led Restoration
While the general principles as set out in SP3 appear benevolent, they may be, and have previously been, used to present a false picture of the effects of minerals extraction as some sort of "gain." Specifically, it is wrong to suggest that there is any gain in the destruction of a diverse farming landscape of mixed pasture and arable land, with trees and hedges, turning it into an open area of stagnant water. The National Character Area description, NCA48, concerning the Trent and Belvoir Vales (NE429) makes it clear that "wetland" is already more than adequately provided in this part of Nottinghamshire. "Wildlife Corridors" referred to in the draft Strategic policy do not require a continuous ribbon of static holes full of water, but stopping and nesting sites that migratory wildfowl can fly between. Such places are, if anything, already over-supplied in this area by past gravel workings. If turned into high-quality nature reserves, such as at Attenborough, this is the work of decades and at great expense by charities and local councils. If left to minimum-cost "restoration," as suggested in 13.4, this creates a large wasted space of lifeless lagoons, as at Hoveringham. Such bodies of water may, if close to residential areas, present health risks to those with breathing problems, or, near road routes, create dangerous foggy conditions from time to time.

Q5 Climate Change
There are two important ways that climate change should affect the Minerals Plan, and both are referred to in Policy SP4. Paragraph 1(a) refers to the desirability of moving to a low carbon economy, but one aspect of such a move not mentioned is the desirability of using less concrete (and consequently less aggregate.) Creation of concrete not only uses large amounts of fossil fuel, but the process of creating cement specifically consists of breaking down the chemical composition of limestone by driving off large volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Modern construction methods tend to use less concrete than was formerly used. As referred to in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c), the second point on climate change is that it is producing greater extremes of weather, including longer periods of very high rainfall. This means areas at risk of flooding are in future at risk of more frequent and more severe potential flooding. Exacerbation of such risk, especially when close to existing human settlement, by extraction of gravel from river banks, is therefore to be all the more strenuously avoided.

Q6 Sustainable Transport
We would emphasise the point SO5 in the Objectives list in this section, "minimising impact on communities." This is not necessarily best achieved in all cases by barging or by having extraction sites close to end markets. Heavy lorries on single-carriageway roads necessarily cause extra congestion, danger, pollution and dust. Longer journeys by clearer roads - or better still by rail - may have less damaging impact. To cite an example no longer under consideration but studied locally in the now-discontinued previous Draft Minerals Local Plan, barging from a proposed new-built site in Shelford would have caused great problems to residents in Burton Joyce, a few metres from that site, from the noise and air pollution, from both its construction and operation, and added to the already unacceptable flood risk, while cutting out only about four miles of road travel before the entire loads were put back onto the same overcrowded A612 route.

Q7. The built, historic and natural environment
We agree with the Policy SP6 standards, and place particular emphasis on landscape character; flood risk; community amenity. As stated above, mainly in answer to Question 4, we have strong reservations about any claim, such as that at 3.49, that "restoration to wetland" has any meaningful contribution to make to local biodiversity. We strongly support the point made in paragraph 3.58 that the landscape in the Trent Washlands is particularly under pressure. We reiterate our concerns expressed earlier on issues mentioned under Flooding, paragraphs 3.61-3.64, but would add that increase in flood risk to areas of human settlement should not be contemplated at all, since the damage, both in financial terms and its destructive effect on people's lives, can far outweigh the value of material extracted. We therefore reject the assumption of paragraph 3.65 that it is sufficient "in some cases" merely "to reduce flood risks" from new mineral extraction plans. In our view there must always be an EIA before consideration of any such proposed quarrying. We state again our opposition to plans that would add significant amounts of heavy traffic to already-overloaded road systems. None of the sites in the present Draft is in the immediate vicinity of our Parish. However, under the previous Minerals Local Plan and the now-withdrawn first version of the current Draft Plan, proposals were made for gravel extraction on our immediate river bank, and then on the neighbouring Shelford bank, which would have brought quarrying to about 200 metres from the nearest houses in Burton Joyce. Therefore we are very conscious of the great value placed on the beautiful local landscape; and we would wish to avoid any such potential destructive impact at any site.

Q8 The Nottinghamshire Green Belt
The Green Belt is not itself designed to provide adequate protection against destructive mineral extraction operations. However, "beneficial use of the Green Belt" must include its landscape character, which is bound to be damaged by mineral working; and especially sand and gravel digging.

Q9 Mineral Safeguarding Consultation areas and associated minerals infrastructure
The greater part of this section is beyond our specific concerns or expertise. However, we view with alarm the reference to the wharf at Colwick, 3.90 and 3.91. The proposal for quarrying at Shelford, part of a revised version of the draft Minerals plan in the consultation and draft plan abandoned in 2017, would have had devastating consequences for Burton Joyce. This is not the place to raise those specific points again, but to say that the Shelford proposal has been excluded from this Draft for no doubt strong reasons. There is no reason to mention that wharf in this Draft Plan if there is not the expectation of adding the Shelford proposal at a later stage. The Fact that the wharf is out of use and part of an existing industrial estate is a positive reason to put that land to more productive use by removing the wharf, and removing also a spurious case for reviving that very threatening proposal.

Q10 Aggregate provision
We are clearly among those who, at the Issues and Options stage, referred to in the first box under MP1 on p.55, advocated a significant allowance for recycled materials as a replacement for newly-extracted aggregates. Given the very high proportion of aggregates in the minerals usage nationally, as quoted in paragraph 4.6, and the very high proportion that these materials represent in Nottinghamshire's minerals output, even a fairly small percentage contribution from recycled and secondary aggregates would make a very significant reduction to total extraction requirements. We must recognise that this is not in the financial interests of extraction businesses, nor perhaps does it help with imposed targets to be hit, but protection of the wider interests of the area and its inhabitants is the essence of planning controls. We therefore are also advocates for Option B in the forecast figures in the second box on that page, "a lower figure than Option A." But of course in the second set of Options we prefer that proposed, A, "Prioritise extensions to existing permitted quarries." We thus consider the figure for sand and gravel, 32.30 million tonnes, in Policy MP1, to be an overestimate that can lead to serious but avoidable harm to the area, and we object to the subsequent figures in the tables at 4.10.

Q11. The draft specific sand and gravel site allocations
Clearly this Council is among those described in the second paragraph of the first box under MP2: we consider that the impacts on local residents, the availability of capacity on the highway network and the availability of recycled materials in the main urban areas should override the attractions of an even geographical spread, and therefore we disagree with the Appraisal Findings under that heading. While in general terms we see benefits to river barging from some sites, this is subject to our severe concerns set out in the answer to Question 9. Since none of the specific proposed extraction sites in the remainder of this section is close to Burton Joyce or its road and transport routes, we make no comment on their individual merits but would simply wish to see that the same standards we would apply to our own area should apply to other places: the reduction in estimates of overall new-dug aggregate demand, and the protection of more densely inhabited parts of the County from the dangers, loss of quality of life, and environmental destruction that nearby quarrying operations would cause.

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Response from Thrumpton Parish Meeting - September 2018
Summary
1. Thrumpton Parish Meeting objects to the Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan published in July 2018, and, in particular, to the inclusion of the site MP2s at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis.
2. In summary our objection is based on:
a) The identification of flaws in the analysis of issues and options that underpin the Draft Plan, and in particular the identification of geographical spread as a key factor determining site allocation.
b) The application of a rationale for the allocation of sites which is inconsistent with the strategic objectives that have been used to shape the Draft Plan.
c) The allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis even though the NCCs own analysis shows it to be one of the most damaging developments for sand and gravel of those considered. Such an allocation is inconsistent with the strategic objectives set out in the plan and the strategic policy for sustainable development and planning requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework that should underpin it.
d) The process by which the draft plan has been formulated is flawed, and the recommendations in relation to Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis are therefore unsound. The analysis of the site listed variously as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west) is also inaccurate, seriously under-rating its potential impact on local residents. The revised Draft Minerals Plan does not therefore meet the standard of evidence-based planning that is to be expected in the minerals planning process.
The detailed reasoning for these objections is set out in the response from Barton in Fabis Parish Council which we would ask you to make reference to. We will summarise our position and our objections in this response.
Response to Consultation Questions
Question 1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
Question 2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Question 3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
We object to the way in which the plan fails to adhere to the strategic objectives set out in 2.30 rather than to the objectives themselves. In particular, SO6 'Protecting and enhancing natural assets' states that an objective is to 'Conserve and enhance Nottinghamshire's natural environment, including its distinctive landscapes, habitats, geology, wildlife species and ecological health of water bodies by avoiding, minimising and mitigating potential

negative impacts.' The Plan has then allocated sites with the greatest environmental impact simply on grounds of size and location - even though nether size nor location appear as strategic objectives. The site allocation process is therefore flawed.
We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the site allocation methodology developed and applied is inconsistent with the strategic objectives of the strategic policy for minerals provision.
Question 4 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
We object to the plan on grounds that the policy for biodiversity-led restoration is inadequate. Its application as a criteria for site allocation is flawed because it does not meaningfully discriminate between proposals in terms of the likely success of biodiversity-led restoration.
Question 6: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
We object to the Plan and the policy related to sustainable transport because we feel that It is not the function of the planning system to manipulate the geography of the market and associated commercial risk, but rather to ensure that development is appropriate and sustainable, given wider societal needs and requirements. The policy on sustainable transport needs to reflect this. One such requirement, for example, is the use of modes of transport other than road. Another is that the most vulnerable and valuable sites are protected notwithstanding their proximity to market.
Question 7: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
We object to the formulation of Policy SP6 because of the lack of transparency in the way it is applied in the site allocation process. The emphasis on restoration should be reduced and the importance of protection and maintenance of assets should be stressed.
Question 8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
Policy SP7 is not transparent in that it fails to state how, in the context of minerals planning, the two tests of 'appropriateness' and 'special circumstances' will be applied. It should be noted that 'special circumstances' in relation to the Green Belt do not include supposed proximity to market or goals of developing a 'spatially sustainable distribution' of minerals sites.
We therefore object to the policy statement on green belt because it lacks any clear indication of how it is to be applied in the minerals planning process.

Question 11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
We object to the application of the site Draft Selection Methodology and its conclusions on grounds of the inconsistency of its outcomes with the stated policy objectives that are stated as underpinning the Draft Plan.
The Draft Plan is therefore flawed and should be revised accordingly to meet the County's own sustainability objectives. In order to do so:
* sites should be considered on their own merits to minimise the likely overall environmental impacts of the Draft Plan;
* geographical spread should only be used to make decisions between sites when all other things are considered equal in order that it does not over-ride consideration of the scale of environmental damage likely to arise by the inappropriate selection of sites due to location. Proximity to market is not an 'exceptional circumstance' as envisaged by the NPPF.
Site at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
We believe the scale of the impacts for the Mill Hill site have been under-estimated, making the decision insecure. We therefore object to the assessment made for the Mill Hill site.
The allocation of the site is not consistent with the objectives of SO6 or SP6. The landscape impacts are amongst the highest attributed to any site in the appraisal matrix, the allocation of this site in the Draft Plan is clearly inconsistent with Policy SP6.
The impact of the proposed development on the greenbelt also conflicts with the stated policy in SP6, because the processing plant will be located on a prominent ridgeline on Mill Hill. This will have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in this area. It will therefore conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and should consequently be considered inappropriate development.
The bridleway passing through and near the site is part of the Trent Valley Way and is an important strategic route between Barton and Thrumpton in the county and Clifton and Wilford in the city which is extremely well-used by walkers, cyclists, and horseriders. The path will be close to quarry workings and will have to cross the site access road and gravel conveyor - this will have a major negative impact on users.
Just a river's width away from the site, those who walk Attenborough's riverside paths will continually view the adverse effects of the site over the lengthy operational period and will no longer be able to enjoy the peace and tranquillity of Attenborough Nature Reserve - a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and one of the most important sites for conservation in the East Midlands. The noise and dust will have a negative impact on wildlife in the reserve.
The impacts are very negative in both the operational phase and the long-term operation and clearly inconsistent with most of the key sustainability objectives and strategic policies that frame the minerals plan. There is a lack of transparency in the assessment in terms of how the site is allocated on the grounds of viability and location when the impact assessment clearly indicates that there are other sites where impacts are far less serious.
The process by which the recommendation arose is flawed, and neither transparent or credible given even the partial evidence-base identified in the Draft Plan.

We therefore object to the allocation of the Mill Hill site.
Our main concerns with the allocation of the site are as follows:
* The Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the third most damaging in the long-term.
* The Council has stated that "there is no published data related to geographical spread". Therefore, the Plan is 'unsound' as the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site based on "maintaining a geographical spread" and therefore overriding the adverse impact on sustainability.
* There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified
* The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
* The site would impact on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five Local Wildlife Sites one of which will be destroyed altogether.
* Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site - providing significant evidence of the negative impact on wildlife and the environment.
* The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any "wholly exceptional reasons" required by the NPPF.
* The site is close to heavily populated areas - including the new Fairham Pastures development of 3,000 homes - which would be impacted by noise and dust from the site itself and from the extensive lorry movements.
* This plan generates 114 lorry movements a day on the section of Green Street adjoining Mill Hill. This was approved in the A453 dualling plans as being part of a route for non-motorised users, but this number of lorry movements is not compatible with safe cycling, walking or horse riding. Also, entering and leaving the roundabout at Mill Hill is already hazardous for all road users due to traffic from the A453 not slowing down. This number of lorry movements would make this junction even more hazardous.
* There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, cycling, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of residents.

Site described as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west)
We are also concerned about inaccuracies in the analysis of the site included in the 'Draft site selection methodology and assessment July 2018' and listed as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west). Although this site has not been selected, this site assessment may be further used following the outcomes of this consultation and possibly as evidence for future mineral plans or planning applications, we therefore believe it is crucial that the information is reassessed and corrected.
Our main concerns are as follows:
Site location
This site is actually in the parish of Thrumpton and, as a consequence, was not immediately evident to residents of Thrumpton as being in such close proximity to the village. The site should be renamed to include Thrumpton to make its location clear.
Sustainability assessment
The assessment of visual sensitivity states:
The main visual impact would be on residents to the southern edge of Barton in Fabis and on users of the Trent Valley Way to the north of the site. There would be more distant views from residential properties on the northern edge of Thrumpton.
In reality, around 50% of Thrumpton properties would have a clear view of the site - these would not be 'distant views' as the site would be within 400-800 metres. The site would also be highly visible from the A453. Crucially, three properties (Fields Farm, The Orchard and Canterbury House) directly adjoin the site yet criteria 14 'Protect and improve human health and quality of life' makes no reference to the close-proximity of these properties and the assessment gives no consideration to the drastic impact (including noise, dust, traffic movement, visual amenity, property value) on these properties and their residents. Lack of reference to such an important factor indicates an inadequate assessment process.
Transport/highway implications
The Transport Evidence Base states that the Annual Average Daily Flow of HGVs on Green Street/Barton Lane is 15 and would be increased by 90 additional lorry movements per day - an increase of 600%. It dismisses this by stating that "Percentage changes in traffic on Green Street would be high, but this is mainly a result of this route being bypassed by the A453 leaving only low residual traffic flows." It also states that "once onto Green Street the route to the A453 is short."
In reality it is 1.8 miles on a road clearly approved and designated as part of the A453 dualling scheme as a route for non-motorised users linking Mill Hill to Long Lane. This number of lorry movements is simply not compatible with safe cycling, walking or horse riding on a road where there is no traffic separation. Also, entering and leaving the roundabout at Mill Hill is already hazardous for all road users due to traffic from the A453 not slowing down and this number of lorry movements would make this junction even more hazardous. The report's conclusion that No road safety issues identified is therefore flawed, inaccurate and highly misleading.

Conclusion
We object to a number of aspects of the Draft Plan as set out above.
The evidence for the Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site - one of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the assessment (and rejected on these grounds previously by the Council) - does not support its selection.
We believe the criteria and the process used were flawed. The inaccuracies in the assessment of Barton in Fabis (west) raise further questions about the robustness of the assessment process.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - Draft Plan Consultation (27th July to 28th Sept 2018)
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and production. We are supportive of the development of this plan, in that it will enable Nottinghamshire to, 'prepare an up-to-date Minerals Local Plan which will guide the future development of mineral planning in our county up to 2036'.
We would like to remind the Council to have full regard of the Written Ministerial Statement: Energy Policy of 17th May 20181.
Our response to the specific questions, relevant to our industry are as follows:
Strategic Objectives:
Question 1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG supports the Nottinghamshire local plan's vision and strategic objectives in their current form. The plan states that 'Over the plan period to 2036 minerals will continue to be used as efficiently as possible across Nottinghamshire. Minerals are a valuable natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused to minimise waste'. UKOOG appreciate this pragmatic approach to mineral development and the recognition as part of the plans vision that 'Nottinghamshire will continue to provide minerals to meet its share of local and national needs.' However, we believe the objective needs to present a wider position and we suggest the wording is modified to include 'and facilitate the development of' minerals to meet local needs and contribute to the national need, 'particularly for energy if the opportunity arises'. UK onshore oil and gas development is compatible with the plan's 8 key strategic objectives, specifically through the development of an adequate supply of domestic minerals under a regulatory environment superior to that of countries from which the UK imports its minerals. It is also important that the plan recognises the need to minimise the impact on climate change. A domestic oil and gas supply offers significant
carbon savings over fuels which otherwise would be imported from overseas.
Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development:
Question 2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG are supportive of the general themes in policy SP1, as we believe that sustainable domestic development is of great importance to the UK. This is especially the case, as the plan makes clear, in the transition to a low carbon economy. Failure to develop UK minerals in a sustainable and heavily regulated domestic environment will result in the offshoring of tax revenue,
jobs, and our carbon emissions. Policy SP1 is aligned with the NPPF but must also take full account of the Written Ministerial Statement: Energy Policy of 17th May 2018.
We note in SP1 - Point 2 states applications .... 'will be approved' and SP1 - Point 3 says that planning permission will be granted. In both cases we believe the wording should be changed to 'applications will be supported', as the approval and/or granting of planning permission is a matter for the determining person/committee, and there is no certainty of outcome.
In the justification text in paragraph 3.6, we believe that the wording should be modified to; 'It is also national policy to support the exploration, appraisal and potential production of hydrocarbons and other minerals, as part of addressing climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy'.
Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
Question 3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
UKOOG Response: It is UKOOGs view that this strategic policy should be worded to equally apply to all minerals. In its current form the policy appears to be very 'aggregate' orientated and should be more flexible in supporting the development of other mineral types.
SP2 point 2 The reference to 'avoidance' should be replaced with 'minimisation' as avoidance may not be possible in the event of a national need.
Policy SP4 - Climate Change:
Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG supports the ambitions of the Climate Change Act (2008), which is the UK Government's mechanism for addressing climate change and its 'nationally determined contribution' to the Paris Agreement.
Policy SP4 states that: 'All minerals development, including site preparation, operational practices and restoration proposals should minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.'
The industry already acts to ensure that emissions associated with hydrocarbon development are minimised. Wells and associated activities are comprehensively monitored in-line with environmental permits throughout the exploration, appraisal and production phases, applying 'Best available techniques' (BAT). Similarly, wells are decommissioned, and sites are restored to ensure environmental impacts are minimised. The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which
requires plans to take a proactive approach to 'mitigating and adapting to climate change' (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF
and the climate change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to state the proposals should 'minimise the impact on climate change by mitigating and managing development emissions'.
The only the emission related issues, which represent material planning considerations, are those associated with the local development of the resource, such as limiting traffic movements. The control of onsite emissions, directly associated with the operation, are regulated by the Environment Agency,
which include methane and NMVOC's. The end use combustion of the hydrocarbons produced, is not a local material local planning consideration, as that is controlled and regulated by central government. For example, if natural gas is produced and sent to a separate combined cycle gas turbine, this facility is already separately permitted and regulated, and any climate impacts are
accounted for within national assessments.
Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG agree that minimising traffic movements in the development of minerals
is sound, where it is practical to do so. The onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of materials and waste products from its operations, wherever it is feasible to do so, but the policy must align with the principal that minerals, including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found. This may not explicitly align with policy SP5 - 2(b), which states, 'within close proximity to the
County's main highway network and existing transport routes in order to avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation'. It is our view that site specific traffic management plans will address local impacts, should they be identified, and that this policy is over restrictive in its current form. The policy must also recognise the short-term traffic impacts of some
mineral developments, where there may be more intense periods of traffic activity but only for a very limited time. Sp5 - Point 1 should also include reference to other forms of transport; for example, conveyors and pipelines etc.
Policy SP7 - The Nottinghamshire Green Belt
Question 8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
UKOOG Response: It is our view that the policy should provide for development uses that have temporary impacts on the openness of the Green Belt.
Policy SP8 - Minerals Safeguarding, Consultation areas and Associated Minerals Infrastructure Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
UKOOG Response: The policy does not take full account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to 'non-mineral development' in parts 1,3 and 4 but 'development' in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a
mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth and occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight minerals resources referred to in paragraph 3.82 of the draft plan. Proposals
for hydrocarbon development in a safeguarding area and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and supporting text should be amended accordingly.
Policy MP12 - Hydrocarbon Minerals
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG believe the policy is generally aligned with both the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance. The policy states;
'Policy MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals 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 identifying the extent of the resource and do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity.
Extraction
3.Proposals 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'.
It is our opinion that the use of the term 'any' in the exploration and appraisal policy text, as underlined above, is overly restrictive and is also inconsistent with the wording used in the Extraction policy text, which states; 'do not give rise to unacceptable impacts'. We suggest that the wording used in the 'extraction' policy text 'do not give rise to unacceptable impacts', should be used in the
Exploration, Appraisal and Extraction policy text consistently.
The wording used for 'restoration' reads as a condition requirement, rather than a policy. We would suggest that this is changed to, 'sites will be restored to their former use, or agreed improved condition, or to an alternative agreed acceptable use, in accordance with the policies of the development plan'.
The policy should also reflect the WMS of 17th May 2018 and changes to the NPPF, which came into effect on the 24th of July 2018
The draft policy text for appraisal states that 'proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided, that they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of theresource'. Similarly, the draft policy for extraction states that, 'proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full
development of the resource'. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the 'overall scheme', and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application.
Furthermore, the requirement for 'an overall scheme' is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG. In fact, the regulatory auspice for the identification and assessment of the oil and gas mineral resource resides with the Oil and Gas Authority. If it is referring to an overall scheme for exploration and appraisal in a general wider context, the text should be deleted, as this will not be known at that stage.
UKOOG comments on Justification text for section MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals
We agree with the wording used in paragraph 4.109 in the justification text, which states,
'It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development. All hydrocarbon development has the potential to deliver national energy requirements but should be subject to environmental safeguards.
Applied to the local circumstances of the Minerals Local Plan, the assessment of environmental and amenity impact (i.e. the constraints on hydrocarbon development) is covered by and can be delivered through the application of the development management policies'.
Both hydrocarbon source rocks and other hydrocarbon bearing geologies, give rise to the same products. These products are extracted through the same surface infrastructure, via boreholes on a purpose-built facility, consisting of the same basic design and features/equipment. For example,
hydraulic fracturing has been undertaken at 10% of the 2000 + wells drilled onshore in the UK into conventional reservoirs. There is common misunderstanding applied to the terms 'conventional' and
'unconventional' as being 'processes'. In fact they refer to the sub-surface geology and not the process. We support the draft plan policy that there is no planning consideration which justifies the separation of shale gas from other hydrocarbon development.
We further note that paragraph 4.113. states, 'A hydrological assessment will be required in support of any planning application and water availability may be a limiting factor in any proposal'.
Both aspects, a 'hydrological Assessment' (groundwater/surface water assessments) and 'water availability' fall under the regulatory remit of the Environment Agency (EA) and are not planning considerations. The inclusion of a hydrological assessment and any assessment of water availability
are not justified in planning policy terms as it duplicates the requirement by the EA under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). The draft plan also appears to suggest that a hydrogeological assessment is solely a requirement for onshore hydrocarbons and not to other extractive industries discussed in the draft plan, to which the EPR regulations equally apply.
Section 5 - Development Management policies
Paragraph 5.4, on page 97, - Environmental Impact Assessment. The final line 'Where EIA is required,
the findings of this', appears to have text missing, as it is an incomplete sentence.
Page 98 - The Policy MP11: Coal - this section appears to be duplicated from page 88.
Policy DM1 - Protecting Local Amenity
Question 22 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local amenity?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG are supportive of the policy statement in DM1, 'Proposals for minerals
development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that any adverse impacts on amenity
are avoided or adequately mitigated to an acceptable level', recognising that existing guidance, such
as Planning Practice Guidance and the NPPF provide the framework for assessing impacts on amenity
such as noise mitigation and landscape.
Policy DM2 - Water Resources and Flood Risk
Question 23 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM2: Water resources and flood
risk?
UKOOG Response: As clearly stated within the supporting policy justification text, para 5.24; 'The
Environment Agency is the main authority for safeguarding the water environment'. Therefore, the
policy text under 'water resources' in Policy DM2, duplicates the role of the Environment Agency in regulating the water environment and should be deleted.
'Policy DM2:
Water resources
1. Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that:
a. Surface water flows at or in the vicinity of the site are not detrimentally altered;
b. Groundwater quality and levels are not detrimentally altered;
c. There are no unacceptable risks of polluting ground or surface waters;
d. Water resources, where required, should be used as efficiently as possible'.
It is the role of the Environment Agency, through the Environmental Permitting Regulations to determine appropriate measures for the protection of surface and groundwater water resources, not the mineral planning authority. Planning Practice Guidance clearly states that it is the role of the Environment Agency to 'protect water resources (including groundwater aquifers)'.
Policy DM3 - Agricultural Land and Soil Quality
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality?
UKOOG Response: Minerals, including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found. The Government in the WMS 17th May 2018 state, 'Mineral Plans should reflect that minerals resources can only be worked where they are found, and applications must be assessed on a site by site basis and having regard to their context. Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across their plan area
that limit shale development without proper justification'. The currently drafted policy is overly restrictive and does not take account of this, neither does it address the temporary nature of development.
'Policy DM3: Agricultural Land and Soil Quality Agricultural land
1. Proposals for minerals development located on the best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that:
a. There is no available alternative and the need for development outweighs the
adverse impact upon agricultural land quality; or
b. Proposals will not affect the long term agricultural potential of the land or soils; or
c. Alternative land of lower agricultural value has considerations which outweigh the adverse impact upon agricultural land quality.
2. Where alternative options are limited to varying grades of best and most versatile land, the development should be located within the lowest grade'
Site selection is a fundamental part of any oil and gas development proposal and it is our view that the policy test established under DM3 are unnecessarily high. The policy should be amended to facilitate the use of land for a temporary period, which would not result in the longer-term impact on 'the best and most versatile land'. It should also specifically include reference to land restoration to
its former use, or an agreed improved use, once temporary operations are completed.
Policy DM4 - Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Question 25 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
UKOOG Response: The draft plan states that proposals for minerals development will only be supported where they can demonstrate 'they are not likely to give rise to a significant adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest'. Under the UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the surface extraction of shale gas are prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be considered on a case by case basis.
It is important to recognise that all onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and provide a clear opportunity, post decommissioning, for sites to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition, for example; a site can be redeveloped to maximise habitat potential and improve biodiversity.
We also note that the plan highlights that Nottinghamshire does not contain any European registered 'Special areas of conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
Policy DM5 - Landscape Character
Question 26: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
UKOOG Response: Onshore oil and gas developments have for decades, operated safely within sensitive environments. Production sites are typically screened by trees or other natural features and are designed not to adversely impact the character and distinctiveness of the landscape.
Once a site is decommissioned, the land is restored in-line with planning conditions and any environment consenting requirements, taking full account of landscape character.
Policy DM6 - Historic Environment
Question 27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?
UKOOG Response: The draft minerals plan states that 'the use of careful design, buffer zones, considered restoration schemes and other mitigation may make it possible to accommodate mineral developments in the vicinity of designated heritage assets'.
The NPPF and WMS 17th May 18, make clear that the use of arbitrary buffer zones or 'set restrictions or thresholds' for shale or onshore oil and gas development should not be established 'without proper justification'. However, the careful design, on a site by site basis of proposed developments in the
vicinity of designated heritage assets is appropriate and compatible with national policy.
Policy DM8 - Cumulative Impact
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM8: Cumulative impact?
UKOOG Response: The plan states that proposals for minerals development will be supported 'where it can be demonstrated that there are no unacceptable cumulative impacts on the environment or on the amenity of a local community'. The draft plan justifies this by specifying that this would apply in relation to a collective effect of different impacts or an individual proposal, or in relation to the effects of a number of developments occurring either concurrently or successively.
UKOOG firmly believe that developments should be considered on a case by case basis and that 'potential future developments' should be excluded from contemporary material planning considerations. Therefore, the description that minerals plans are considered in conjunction with 'reasonably foreseeable developments' is not appropriate and should be deleted.
Policy DM10 - Airfield Safeguarding
Question 31 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?
UKOOG Response: The draft policy states that, 'Proposals for minerals development within the following Airfield Safeguarding Areas will be supported where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed extraction, restoration and after use will not result in any unacceptable adverse impacts on aviation safety'. The wording here should be amended to include reference to proposed exploration and appraisal, and not just extraction and restoration.
Yours Sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam,
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - Draft Plan Consultation
Consultation Draft - September 2018
This response to the consultation draft of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan is prepared on behalf of IGas. IGas is British company listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange. It is a leading UK onshore oil and gas exploration and production business, holding a portfolio of production and exploration assets primarily focused on three regions: the North West, East Midlands and the Weald Basin in Southern England.
The business has more than thirty years' experience of successfully and safely extracting and producing hydrocarbons onshore in the UK working closely with local communities, regulators and MPAs. The UK is recognised globally as a leading example for oil and gas industry regulation.
IGas is committed to the protection of the environment and providing safe and healthy working conditions for its employees and contractors. It is also committed to maintaining close and responsive relationships with the communities in which it operates and has a long track record of engaging with local residents.
IGas has been operating its own Community Fund since 2008 which has, over the last decade, distributed almost £1 million to local projects that are charitable, educational or benevolent in purpose.
IGas holds a number of onshore UK licence interests in the three regions many of which it both owns and operates:
* North West: EXL273 and PEDLs 056, 145, 147, 184, 188, 189, 190,193, 293 and 295.
* East Midlands: AL009, EXL288, ML, 3,4,6 and 7, PEDLs 006, 012, 139, 140, 146,169, 200, 210, 273, 278, 305, 316, 317 and 337 and PLs162,178,179,199 and 220.
* Weald Basin: DL002 and 004, ML 18 and 21, PEDLs 021, 070, 233, 235, 257 and 326 and PLs 182, 205, 211, 233, 240 and 249.
The East Midlands area is comprised of two primary production centres: Welton and Gainsborough.
The Welton area is made up of six fields and a gathering centre where the produced oil, gas and water are separated. The produced oil is transported to Conoco Immingham via road tanker; gas is used for power generation and exported to the National Grid; produced water is pumped for reinjection.
The Gainsborough area is made up of 10 fields and a processing facility. Oil is transported to Phillips 66 via road taker, gas is piped to Gainsborough 1 for power generation and produced water is pumped for reinjection.
More recently IGas has obtained planning permission at Springs Road, Misson to develop a hydrocarbon wellsite and drill up to two exploratory boreholes with Shale Gas being targeted. Development has commenced, and construction of the well pad is nearing completion prior to drilling of a vertical and then horizontal well.
Planning permission for a hydrocarbon well site to drill an exploratory borehole at Tinker Lane, near Bawtry has also been obtained. Development has commenced at Tinker Lane with construction of the well pad nearing completion prior to drilling of a vertical well to target the shale resource.
Our response to the MLP focusses on the Vision and Strategic Objectives; Policy MP12 Hydrocarbons and the supporting text; and the general development management policies.
Initial comment.
Para 1.2 sets out the range of minerals within Nottinghamshire. The plan identifies sand and gravel, gypsum and clay as being all of national importance. Paragraph 1.2 should also reflect the national importance of a shale gas. This is most recently outlined in a Joint Ministerial Written Statement (G Clark (Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) and J Brokenshire (Housing, Communities and Local Government)) 17 May 2018. The Joint Ministerial Written Statement (JMWS) states:
Shale gas development is of national importance. The Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy.
Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development:
Question 2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Policy SP1 at point 2 says applications will be approved and point 3 says planning permission will be granted. Whilst such a strong position could be supported, it is incorrect as the approval and/or granting of planning permission is a matter for the determining person / committee and there is no certainty of outcome. For points 2 and 3 the policy should be amended so that applications will be supported.
We question whether the specific reference to the NPPF at point 3 is relevant. The NPPF will be a material consideration in the determination of all planning applications but it is not the only material consideration. The recent JWMS is also a material consideration in the development of planning policy and determination of planning applications for hydrocarbons.
Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
Question 3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
As a strategic policy applying to all minerals it is very aggregate orientated. The policy needs to be more flexible in supporting other mineral types or perhaps needs to specifically refer to aggregates.
SP2 (2) The reference to 'avoidance' should be replaced with 'minimisation' as avoidance may not be possible in the event national need may prevail.
Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
IGas agree that minimising traffic movements in the development of minerals is sound, where it is practical to do so. The onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of materials and waste products from its operations, wherever it is feasible to do so, but the policy must align with the principal that minerals, including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found. This may not explicitly align with policy SP5 - 2(b), which states, 'within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes in order to avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation'. Site specific traffic management plans will address local impacts, should they be identified, and that this policy is over restrictive in its current form. The policy must also recognise the short-term traffic impacts of some mineral developments, where there may be more intense periods of traffic activity but only for a very limited time. SP5 - Point 1 should also include reference to other forms of transport; for example, conveyors and pipelines etc.
Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
Question 7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
Policy SP6 is onerous and does not recognise the weighting of all facets of sustainable development that should be applied when considering applications for development. Regarding hydrocarbon development, whilst there may be potential for environmental impact, the economic benefit of mineral extraction
should be afforded 'great weight' (paragraph 205 of the NPPF). This is further ratified by the JMWS (17 May 2018).
The significance of impact depends on the significance of the asset it affects. Paragraph 171 of the NPPF states that Plans should, 'distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated assets.' Paragraph 184 of the NPPF recognises a similar approach for the historic environment in that assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Policy SP7 - The Nottinghamshire Green Belt
Question 8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
The final bullet point of Policy SP7 states:
Within the Green Belt, minerals developments will be supported:
* Where the highest standards of development, operation and restoration will be undertaken to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt.
The policy needs to provide for temporary uses that may have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The final bullet point does not conform with NPPF and should be amended, a requirement for higher standards of working is unnecessary as is restoration to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt. Policy SP7 fails to meet the tests of soundness within paragraph 35 of NPPF as it is not consistent with national policy. Ensuring that the operation and restoration is compatible with Green Belt objectives is a more appropriate strategy and reflective of the NPPF.
Policy MP12 - Hydrocarbons
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
We do not believe that the approach being taken at MP12 Hydrocarbon Minerals in the MLP is positively prepared and does not reflect the advice within NPPF or the JMWS of 17 May 2018.
Paragraphs 4.104 to 4.105 of the draft Plan set out the background and approach for shale gas. It is acknowledged within the MLP that there is a potentially significant shale gas resource within Nottinghamshire but the Plan fails to make reference to the potential benefits of a shale gas industry within the UK or the Government support within the Planning Practice Guidance to the NPPF or recent ministerial statements. Para 4.105 of the MLP simply makes reference to the fact that shale gas extraction is a very intensive activity. This is in itself is not backed up by any evidence or experience. For example, the footprint taken up by the site at Springs Road, Misson, is very small in comparison to a colliery or a
sand and gravel quarry. With the operation themselves having far less environmental impacts than a standard quarrying operation.
There is a clear promotion of a shale gas industry at the national level and for consistency this should be reflected within the MLP.
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), originally published by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March 2014, at Minerals paragraph 91 (reference ID: 27-091-20140306) states that "as an emerging form of energy supply, there is a pressing need to establish - through exploratory drilling - whether or not there are sufficient recoverable quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons such as shale gas ......present to facilitate economically viable full scale production."
A Government supported Ernst and Young supply chain report (Getting ready for UK shale gas, April 2014) indicated 'there could be significant benefits for jobs and growth from a successful UK Shale industry: over 64,000 jobs at peak could be supported across the wider economy, with more than 6,000 jobs on shale pads themselves. Many of these would be highly skilled, high quality jobs, with above average pay.'
A combined shale gas and oil policy statement by DECC and DCLG (15 August 2015) stated the following:
A national need to explore and develop our shale gas and oil in a safe, sustainable and timely way.
Exploring and developing our shale gas and oil resources could potentially bring substantial benefits and help meet our objectives for secure energy supplies, economic growth and lower carbon emissions.
The Government therefore considers that there is a clear need to seize the opportunity now to explore and test our shale potential.
These comments have now been reiterated within the JMWS (17 May 2018) which provides specific advice on planning policy and guidance, stating:
This Statement is a material consideration in plan-making and decision-taking, alongside relevant policies of the existing National Planning Policy Framework (2012), in particular those on mineral planning (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons).
Shale gas development is of national importance. The Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. This includes shale gas exploration and extraction. Mineral Plans should reflect that minerals resources can only be worked where they are found, and applications must be assessed on a site by site basis and having regard to their context. Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across their plan area that limit shale development without proper justification. We expect Mineral Planning Authorities to recognise the fact that Parliament has set out in statute the relevant definitions of hydrocarbon, natural gas and associated hydraulic fracturing. In addition, these matters are described in Planning Practice Guidance, which Plans must have due regard to.
Consistent with this Planning Practice Guidance, policies should avoid undue sterilisation of mineral resources (including shale gas).
The Government has consulted on a draft revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The consultation closed on 10 May 2018. In due course the revised National Planning Policy Framework will sit alongside the Written Ministerial Statement.
We intend to publish revised planning practice guidance on shale development once the revised National Planning Policy Framework has been launched ensuring clarity on issues such as cumulative impact, local plan making and confirmation that planners can rely on the advice of regulatory experts.
There is a clear intention at Government level to seize the opportunity now to explore and test our shale potential and this support should be explicit within the MLP.
We object to Policy MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals as currently written. For all four phases of hydrocarbon development Policy MP12 states that development does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity. Such an approach is not in accordance with the NPPF as there is no weighting provided on the level of environmental asset - is it of international, national or local significance. Similar concerns are raised to individual Development Management Policies below.
On a point of clarity:
At para 4.111 it states that the, 'PEDL licences allows a company to pursue a range of oil and gas exploration activities ...'. The PEDL licences actually place an obligation on the holder to explore and develop for hydrocarbons.
Development Management Policies
Policy DM5: Landscape Character
Question 26 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
Policy DM5 is seeking to place a weight on the impacts upon landscape character comparable to that of nationally designated landscapes (of which there are none in Nottinghamshire).
The NPPF states at paragraphs 171 and 172:
171. Plans should: distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework53; take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries.
172. Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads54. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development55 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:
a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and
c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
For the Plan to be sound, Policy DM5 needs to be amended to correctly reflect the guidance within NPPF.
Policy DM6: Historic Environment
Question 27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic environment?
Policy DM6 is not consistent with the NPPF nor is it positively prepared. Chapter 16 of the NPPF sets out the approach for Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
Para 197 of NPPF states:
The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
For the plan to be sound it is recommended that Policy DM6 is amended in line with the guidance of NPPF.
Policy DM10 - Airfield Safeguarding
Question 31 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?
The first part of the policy should include reference to proposed exploration and appraisal.
I trust that the above is self-explanatory and useful. Please don't hesitate to get in touch should you wish to discuss any of the content of this letter.

Response to Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Plan

Submitted by SAGE and Shelford Parish Council

Question 1
What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
plan?

We believe that the vision and objectives are clear, straightforward and achievable. In particular we are pleased with the emphasis on minimising transport effects on the environment by choosing sites which are close to forecast demand. Also we appreciate the importance attached to minimising the effect on communities.

Question 2
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy.

Question 3
What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy, in particular the emphasis on extending existing sites.

Question 4
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

We are in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the move towards wetlands as an objective rather than deep cold water lagoons.
We would repeat our previous comment that while accepting that LBAP indicators are the only policy objectives available, there are other issues connected with the loss of farmland habitats and information from wildlife surveys and RSPB red and amber listed birds should be noted.

Question 5
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

We are generally in agreement but note the correlation between flood risk and climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather conditions.
In addition we appreciate the emphasis placed on efficient site operations and minimising transport emissions.

Question 6
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

We are in full agreement with the draft policy and note particularly the recognition that barging up stream to Nottingham may not be economical and that sites should minimise transport distances to main markets.

Question 7
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural
environment?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the requirement that "such planning will have to take account of the impacts of potentially more extreme flood events".
However we are concerned by the statement "Future mineral extraction within high risk areas is unlikely to be avoidable". The consequences of this on communities, either from flooding or from structural flood prevention measures would be enormous and conflicts with the policy of minimising effects on communities.

Question 8
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green
Belt?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 9
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 10
What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?

We support the options chosen. The forecast statistics appear more reasonable in the light of current and foreseeable construction activities.
However we are concerned by the statement "Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated".
We would argue that the same rigour be that has been applied to the Minerals Plan would need to be used in the approval of any additional proposals and that this policy does not allow for a "free for all" development situation.

Question 11
What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

We support the draft policy approach and believe it satisfies many other policy requirements, especially proximity to demand and minimising the impact on communities. In particular it is pleasing to see the bulk of demand being satisfied from existing resources.

Question 12
What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

We agree with the allocations.

Question 13
What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand
over the plan period?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 14
What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

We are in full agreement with this draft policy.


Question 15
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 16
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 17
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 18
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 19
What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over
the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 20
What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.




Question 21
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 22
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local amenity?

This is a critical area and generally we support the provisions. However it is important that proposed site working arrangements are satisfactory before planning approval is given.
In addition we feel more emphasis should be given to health (respiratory) implications of air particulates, especially in the Trent Valley where a funnelling effect may concentrate particulates and thus aggravate health problems for local communities.

Question 23
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM2: Water resources and
flood risk?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy wording and are pleased to see the use of the Sequential Test to direct the choice of sites to those with the least risk of flooding.
We believe this subject to be the most uncertain and variable as to its outcomes and will require the utmost rigour to be applied, particularly with regard to climate change. For instance, when considering proposals for mineral extraction at the very earliest stage, we would emphasise the need to produce an interim flood risk assessment (via an EIA) so that early decisions can be taken on an informed basis, using robust data.
At a more detailed level we question the assumption that the storage of flood-plain water in worked out quarries would not jeopardise existing river-flow patterns.

The intangible cost to communities in terms of flood alleviation schemes and the potential barriers and structures that may be necessary needs to be set against the benefits of extraction.

Question 24
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality?

We accept the inevitability of trading agricultural land for minerals extraction over the medium tem but believe the major effort should be directed towards restoration wherever possible. Following potential political (BREXIT) and climatic problems provision of food should be prioritised over amenity.




Question 25
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?

We agree with this policy but would prioritise protection over creation of habitats.

Question 26
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?

We support this policy. However, we feel it should include reference to the approach to be taken to landscape assessment at the local level when considering specific mineral developments AND the inclusion of the role of local communities in this assessment.

Question 27
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic environment?

We strongly support this policy but would like to see mention made of protecting physical access to archaeological and historic sites in addition to he specific sites themselves.

Question 28
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: Public access?

We support this policy but wonder how the "unacceptable impact" on the existing rights of way will be judged?

Question 29
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM8: Cumulative impact?

We support this policy but the wording could include reference to the potential of future mineral workings in an area, especially as many mineral operators would have long term realistic strategies for an area in addition to specific development proposals.

Question 30
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM9: Highways safety and
vehicle movements/routeing?

We support this policy but in addition to c) "routeing to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities" we would like to see the inclusion of the impact of air quality on local communities arising from routeing and vehicular movements.

Question 31
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?

We support this policy.

Question 32
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM11: Planning obligations?

We strongly support this policy.

Question 33
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use
and aftercare?

We support these policies but would add the following :
Restoration - add 4 d) provide evidence that imported waste would not contaminate water sources or the environment generally.
After-use - add (in 8?) after-use proposals should not cause undue problems or inconvenience for local communities through for example noise, traffic impact, etc.


Question 34
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM14: Incidental mineral
extraction?

We support this policy.

Question 35
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM15: Borrow pits?

We support this policy.

Question 36
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial
development?

We support this policy. We would add the words "but those developments falling outside the GPDO would be subject to planning permission in the normal way"

Question 37
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM17: Mineral exploration?

We support this policy but would add the words "should be notified to the County Council but would generally" after "Proposals for mineral exploration" and before "be permitted etc".

Response to Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Plan

Submitted by SAGE and Shelford Parish Council

Question 1
What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
plan?

We believe that the vision and objectives are clear, straightforward and achievable. In particular we are pleased with the emphasis on minimising transport effects on the environment by choosing sites which are close to forecast demand. Also we appreciate the importance attached to minimising the effect on communities.

Question 2
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy.

Question 3
What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy, in particular the emphasis on extending existing sites.

Question 4
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

We are in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the move towards wetlands as an objective rather than deep cold water lagoons.
We would repeat our previous comment that while accepting that LBAP indicators are the only policy objectives available, there are other issues connected with the loss of farmland habitats and information from wildlife surveys and RSPB red and amber listed birds should be noted.

Question 5
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

We are generally in agreement but note the correlation between flood risk and climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather conditions.
In addition we appreciate the emphasis placed on efficient site operations and minimising transport emissions.

Question 6
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

We are in full agreement with the draft policy and note particularly the recognition that barging up stream to Nottingham may not be economical and that sites should minimise transport distances to main markets.

Question 7
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural
environment?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the requirement that "such planning will have to take account of the impacts of potentially more extreme flood events".
However we are concerned by the statement "Future mineral extraction within high risk areas is unlikely to be avoidable". The consequences of this on communities, either from flooding or from structural flood prevention measures would be enormous and conflicts with the policy of minimising effects on communities.

Question 8
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green
Belt?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 9
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 10
What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?

We support the options chosen. The forecast statistics appear more reasonable in the light of current and foreseeable construction activities.
However we are concerned by the statement "Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated".
We would argue that the same rigour be that has been applied to the Minerals Plan would need to be used in the approval of any additional proposals and that this policy does not allow for a "free for all" development situation.

Question 11
What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

We support the draft policy approach and believe it satisfies many other policy requirements, especially proximity to demand and minimising the impact on communities. In particular it is pleasing to see the bulk of demand being satisfied from existing resources.

Question 12
What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

We agree with the allocations.

Question 13
What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand
over the plan period?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 14
What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

We are in full agreement with this draft policy.


Question 15
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 16
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 17
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 18
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 19
What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over
the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 20
What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. 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.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. 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.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Dear Sir/Madam
Nottinghamshire Draft Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for consulting Rushcliffe Borough Council on the Draft Minerals Local Plan and supporting Draft Minerals Local Plan Interim Sustainability Report. Having read the documents, please accept the following responses to selected questions which are pertinent to minerals developments in Rushcliffe.
Draft Minerals Local Plan
Q1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) broadly supports the overarching vision and welcomes the additional paragraph which requires mineral developments are designed, located and operated to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised.
However, as stated within our previous representation on the Issues and Options Minerals Local Plan, the vision should not prioritise proximity to major markets, growth areas and sustainable transport nodes over other considerations. Whilst the proximity of the resource to the market is important, 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..."
When telephoning, please ask for :
John King
Telephone no :
0115 9148257
Email:
jjking@rushcliffe.gov.uk
Our Reference :
950.0
Your Reference :
Date :
27 September 2018
Furthermore, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (avoid, mitigate and last resort compensate), the plan should prioritise sites that avoid adverse impacts on the environment rather than mitigate or compensate through 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."
Q2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Policy SP1 and the supporting text should be amended to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the revised NPPF (2018). Specifically Part 3 of the policy and part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
Q3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
RBC supports the prioritisation of extending existing sites as set out in Policy SP2 part 1) b) and the need in Part 2 to demonstrate that the avoidance of adverse social, economic and environmental impacts have been prioritised. The Council is not convinced however that these requirements have been equally applied to the selection of the mineral allocations, specifically the selection of MP2s Mill Hill as this is a new sand and gravel quarry which the SA, identifies as being significantly constrained by a wide range of environmental issues (landscape and visual amenity, biodiversity, flood risk, agricultural land and degraded air quality). It is also in close proximity of Barton in Fabis.
Q4: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
RBC supports the prominence and importance given to restoration within the draft plan and Policy SP3 in particular. The specific reference to the Local BAP and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Project is welcomed, however the justification does not include an explanation of the mapping project and how it should be used to inform restoration. Rather the text refers to landscape scale restoration, National Character Areas and priority habitats which the opportunity mapping project brings together.
Q8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
RBC welcomes policy SP7and its supporting justification which highlights the need to consider the impact of infrastructure, which is required to extract the mineral, upon the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, the policy (or supporting justification) should ensure that if the openness is harmed during operation and restoration, this is inappropriate and can only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Harm to the Green Belt's openness should be given substantial weight, and development should only be permitted if this harm to openness, Green Belt purposes and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. These considerations will include the need for the mineral, the existence of alternative sources outside
the Green Belt, and the measures undertaken to reduce the harm to the Green Belt and its purposes.
This approach should be applied and explained where allocations are proposed in the Green Belt.
Q10: What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?
RBC supports the identified levels of demand and subsequent provision of minerals (within Policy MP1) based on the Local Aggregates Assessment average 10 year data and the provision of 7 year land bank for sand and gravel and sandstone, or 10 years land bank for crushed rock. This approach complies with the NPPF.
Q11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
East Leake North - MP2q
The extension of the existing sand and gravel quarry at East Leake is not opposed in principle. This however is subject to the maintenance of the existing hydrological conditions that maintain the water levels of Sheepwash Brook and the condition of the Local Wildlife Sites to the South of Sheepwash Brook.
Mill Hill - MP2s
RBC has serious concerns regarding the proposed sand and gravel allocation at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s).
Green Belt and Landscape Impacts
As the site is within the Green Belt, and would require significant infrastructure to transport the mineral up Mill Hill to the loading area adjacent to Green Street, there is likely to be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the Green Belt purpose which safeguards the countryside from encroachment. This concern is confirmed by the landscape appraisal of the allocation, which according to the SA and Site Assessment Methodology document determines the landscape impacts to be very negative. Post-restoration, the landscape impacts are considered to remain very negative.
Loss of Rights of Way and Impacts on Visual Amenity
Impacts on visual amenity are exacerbated by the number of rights of way that cross the site, including a bridleway and footpath to Barton in Fabis. The diversion of these routes and the enjoyment of them will be significantly affected whilst the quarry is in operation. The Trent Valley Way, an important regional trail, is on the opposite bank of the River Trent, within the Attenborough Nature Reserve. The enjoyment of this route is also likely to be affected.
Impacts on Nature Conservation Assets
Located within the Trent Valley, the site includes or is immediately adjacent to the Barton Flash Local Wildlife Site (LWS), Barton Pond and Drain LWS, Brandshill Wood LWS, Brandshill Grassland LWS and Brandshill Marsh LWS. It is also in close proximity to Attenborough Gravel
Pits and Holme Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest, and several more LWSs including Clifton Fox Covert, Burrows Farm Grassland and Clifton Wood. Whilst restoration would include the creation of 62ha of priority habitat, the SA Report concludes that the allocation would still involve an overall reduction in BAP habitat and the loss and degradation of a number of LWSs and features used by protected species. The overall net reduction in priority habitat is a significant constraint.
Concerns regarding the surveys of protected and priority species have been raised, specifically Barn Owls which nest in the vicinity of the site. Given the known presence of this species, further surveys should be undertaken to establish the importance of the site for this species and whether breeding birds or their young would be disturbed (which is contrary to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).
Where such ecological impacts occur, in accordance with paragraph 175 of the NPPF, the 'mitigation hierarchy' should be applied. This favours avoidance (alternative sites) rather than mitigation or compensation (as is occurring here through restoration) as a last resort. If compensation would not avoid significant harm (as is the case with this allocation), the NPPF permits the refusal of development. As such the direct loss of LWS should be avoided and adequate avoidance and mitigation measures (such as buffers) put in place to ensure LWS and SSSIs in the vicinity are not adversely affected by noise, dust or changes in ground water quality and levels.
Transportation of Mineral
Whilst the site is located in close proximity of Nottingham, a significant local market for sand and gravel, and can easily access the M1 (via the A453), the quarried material from Mill Hill will be transported by road only. This conflicts with draft Policy SP5 part 1 which states that all mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. Given the site's location adjacent to the River Trent, and notwithstanding the increased disturbance to the river environment and neighbouring nature reserve, the transportation of the mineral by road clearly conflicts with this policy. Regarding the SA, we do not agree that the transportation by road should be scored +1 (slightly positive) against the 3rd SA Objective which promotes sustainable patterns of movement and the use of sustainable modes of transport. This should be neutral, as the location close to markets is negated by the transportation by HGVs.
Impacts on Air Quality
The transportation by road and generation of dust raise air quality concerns, and the cumulative impact of this allocation and the adjacent Clifton Pastures employment and housing strategic urban extension must be considered. SA objective 11 seeks to protect and improve air quality, however the SA Interim Report's assessment of Mill Hill (on page 131) does not examine the types and levels of pollution generated (only the number of lorry movements) and there is no considerations of cumulative effects with the neighbouring strategic urban extension. The only mitigation measures proposed is dust suppression.
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by air quality assessments. These assessments should consider the air quality impact as a result of operations including land movements, extraction of sand and gravel. As well as the impact on vehicle movements arriving and leaving the sites, this assessment should reference the IAQM guidance on Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning 2016 as well as LAQM Technical Guidance (TG16). The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Noise and Vibration
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by noise and vibration assessments. These assessments should be in line with MPG 11 - control of noise at surface mineral workings. The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Contaminated Land
Due to the potential for land surrounding the areas of mineral works being highlighted as potentially contaminated land I would recommend that at least a Phase 1 desk top study is submitted with any application to determine whether a source - receptor pathway exists.
Cumulative Effects
Given the proximity of the Clifton Urban Extension, other cumulative effects should also be considered within the SA.
Impacts on Local Residents
In addition to environmental impacts, the SA recognises that the site is in close proximity to settlements, especially Barton in Fabis which is approximately 130m to the south and west, and that during the operational phase there could be an adverse effect resulting from noise, dust and traffic. In terms of visual amenity, there would be a significant adverse change to views for residents on the northern edge of Barton in Fabis with windows facing the site and riverside properties to the eastern edge of the River Trent. It concludes that the allocation would have a very negative adverse effect on the SA's 14th objective which requires the protection and improvement of human health and quality of life.
Sustainability Appraisal
Overall the allocation has a negative effect on 8 of the 14 SA objectives (4 of which are very negative) and only scored positively against those objectives that other sites would equally perform positively against (meeting mineral needs and local employment). Only the allocation's close proximity to the A453 and Nottingham are unique to this site and this appears to have led to the site's allocation.
Paragraph 7.10 of the SA Interim Report states that twenty sand and gravel sites were assessed and it was found that those which scored most negatively in the operational period included Barton-in-Fabis (Mill Hill). This is a consequence not only of the issues above, but the site's location within flood zone 3, impact on the historic environment, loss of agricultural land, and loss of water quality (all of which result in a negative assessment in the SA). Furthermore the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity Study 2014, which has informed the SA, identifies the site as being High Environmental Sensitivity ('Red').
The negative impacts identified within the SA Interim Report have been recognised within the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment which justifies the allocation of the site (page 55). It states that:
"...whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, these become slight negative impacts in the long term. Taking
account of the contribution of this site to the provision of minerals in the Nottingham area, it is considered appropriate to include the proposal as an allocation in the Draft Minerals Plan."
RBC accepts that there should be geographical spread of minerals to meet needs across the county and beyond, however, given the significant adverse effects upon the environment and local community of Barton in Fabis, and the site's location within the Green Belt (which protects openness and Green Belt purposes), a detailed comparison of potential allocations within the Nottingham Area and appropriate weighting of the sites benefits and adverse effects is required in order to justify this site
Finally, the trajectory of mineral extraction from Mill Hill indicates that this will commence in 2019. This appears ambitious given that the submitted application has not yet been determined.
Q16: What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?
RBC supports policy MP7 and the retention of the Marblaegis Mine as a permitted site for Gypsum.
Development Management Policies
The last sentence of paragraph 5.4, which addresses EIAs, ends abruptly and the following page repeats Policy MP11 coal.
Q25: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
The wording of Part 1 a) should be amended as it refers to 'likely significant adverse effects on the integrity' of a European site. The Habitats Regulations however seek to prevent 'adverse effects on integrity', not 'likely significant adverse effects on integrity'. The assessment of 'likely significant effects' is undertaken as part of the HRA screening to determine whether an appropriate assessment of possible adverse effects is required
'Mitigated' should be changed to 'compensated'. Fully mitigated would imply adverse effects have been avoided/addressed, if so there are no adverse effects and development can proceed. If adverse effects cannot be avoided or mitigated, and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) are proven, compensation, not mitigation for the harm/loss must be provided.
Part b should be amended to reflect the NPPF which states that development likely to have an 'adverse effect' (not 'significant adverse effect') should not normally be permitted. This provides greater protection for SSSIs as any adverse effect on the interest of the site would be weighed against the benefits of the scheme, not just significant effects. The policy should also refer to the impacts on the network of SSSIs as whole, not just individual sites.
Part 3 c) should refer to the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Paragraph 5.46 should be amended to reflect the requirements of the habitats regulations - adverse effect on integrity - not significant effects (see comments above).
Paragraph 5.52 addresses effects on priority habitats and species, but has confused priority habitats as referred to in the Government circular 06/2005 (which covers European Sites that are priority habitats) and priority habitats within the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (which covers local habitats). The later receives less protection than the former and does not require agreement from the European Commission that imperative reasons of overriding public interest exist.
Q26: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
If harmful impacts can be mitigated then it is demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on character and distinctiveness. Consequently there would be no requirement for further mitigation. Policy DM5 should be amended as follows:
"Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on the character and distinctiveness of the landscape unless there is no available alternative and the need for development outweighs the landscape interest and the harmful impacts can be adequately mitigated;"
Supporting justification should require avoidance and mitigation measures where a development will have adverse impacts on character and distinctiveness. If these measures do not prevent residual adverse effects, then the assessment of alternative options and weighting of adverse impacts against the benefits of the proposal are engaged.
Policy DM5 Part 2 should be amended as follows:
"Mitigation and compensation measures that comprise landscaping, planting and restoration proposals should take account of the relevant landscape character policy area as set out in the Landscape Character Assessments covering Nottinghamshire and, where appropriate, the output of the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report."
Q28: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: Public access?
As a number of allocated sites and mineral reserves are in the Green Belt, the supporting justification for DM7 should cross refer to, and reflect, national Green Belt policy which states LPAs should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as the provision of access, opportunities for sport and recreation, enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.
Q33: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?
RBC supports the restoration policy. However, the supporting justification should refer to the delivery of the priority habitats and opportunity areas within the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Q37: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial development?
The supporting text should cross refer to Green Belt policy and explain that associated industrial developments are inappropriate within the Green Belt and that very special circumstances must be proven to exist in order to grant planning permission for these ancillary/associated activities.
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 faithfully,

Mineral Local Plan Draft Consultation.

INTRODUCTION

In regard to the Issues and Options Consultation, we submitted our views into how sites are chosen due to the unfavourable site choices that had been submitted in the previous MLP.

However, the same sites choices which were in the previous MLP have been re-submitted again in the new MLP Draft Consultation,with the exception of Barnby Moor.

Although Barnby Moor has now been removed from the MLP Draft Consultation, a planning application regarding this site was submitted to the planning department and is still pending, to allow the mineral operators time to come to an agreement on how to work this site.

As Botany Bay and Barnby Moor are under consideration by different departments, if approved, this will result in having two new greenfield sites in the same village, contrary to the preference shown in the Issues and Options Consultation, of choosing extensions to permitted quarries rather than creating new greenfield sites.


In regard to the previous MLP Consultation, a stipulation was made by the Independent Inspector stating no more sites should be chosen from the idle valley.

This stipulation occurred when the Independent Inspector in the 2005 Mineral Local Plan gave approval to permit a quarry to be allocated at Sturton Le Steeple. The decision made by the Independent Inspector stipulated however, that no further sites would be required in the idle valley until the reserves in this site was worked out.

When the site at Sturton Le Steeple was allocated into the MLP, however an objection was made to why Botany Bay had not been allocated, however the inspector reply was, as there were sufficient reserves in the Sturton Le Steeple quarry that no further sites from the idle valley were needed until this quarry had been worked out to prevent an over provision from the area.

The Sturton Le Steeple quarry obtained planning approval in 2008, however in 2011 the mineral operator made a request to the NCC to shelve this quarry stating that the lack of demand for sand and gravel was the reason for their decision and that commercially they would proceed with the application in its entirety when the situation changed.

However, this was contrary to the findings in the LAA report which stated at the time of this request, that sand and gravel was showing an increase in demand, not a decrease, however the request was still approved by the NCC to delay working this quarry.

This was also duplicity on the part of the mineral operator, as at the call for site stage, the mineral operator, submitted the largest number of sites throughout the County into the MLP, including the idle valley, which went against the stipulation that no further sites should be submitted.


This mineral operator has now decided to mothball the Sturton Le Steeple quarry, however he also owns the mineral rights of Girton quarry and has also mothballed this quarry. This quarry's planning permission is up to 2036.


In mothballing sites, it allows the operators to submit more sites into the MLP, however in the previous Mineral Local Plan, it was not considered sound, as it exceeded the permitted reserves, as too many sites were being submitted by the mineral industry without sufficient justification, as there was not a need. However the more sites the mineral operator acquires, the more assets they have.


When mineral operators are allowed to stockpile quarries by mothballing or restricting output, the owness is then put on the less favourable sites, which are then chosen to make up the shortfall. This was cited in the LAA which states the decision to delay working the Sturton Le Steeple quarry was the reason for the shortfall.

In the Consultation Process, the rules are that all parties should accept without objection, the final decision of the Independent Inspector. However that did not happen, due to the mineral operator mothballing the Sturton Le Steeple quarry, he has now submitted his preferred choice of Botany Bay into the Mineral Local Plan Draft Consultation, against the Inspector's stipulation, so in essence it is the mineral operator who has made the final decision.

As the NCC ignored this stipulation, by allowing further sites from the idle valley into the MLP, then we believe justification needs to be demonstrated to why this was allowed.

However this request for information was declined, requesting us to submit our comments into the MLP Draft Consultation.

On these grounds we would like to challenge the decision in allocating further sites into the idle valley for the reasons we have stated. I believe we will be given the opportunity to address this matter to the Secretary of State in the next Consultation Process.

Have Your Say

The MLP Draft Consultation is a complex document which has taken 7 months to complete, and was submitted for us to view on 26th June 2018. However, I do not find this document user friendly, as the individual questions posed, covered policies too diverse to be able to respond with a single reply.

In Question 1, our comments was invited on the strategic objectives and the draft vision, as these objectives covered a range of issues in total, there were nine objectives, then equally it would require 9 responses, and this was just in Question 1.

This approach was applied to every question in the MLP, the reading matter also prior to the question was far too extensive, which added more information and different approaches and elements to the policy, that when you reached the question, it required reading the information again as there were too many issues to respond to.

Due to the reasons above, I believe the presentation of the MLP Draft Consultation does not lend itself in encouraging participation into the consultation process, it actually discourages it.

As these policies are very important, I would prefer to address them in context to the site allocations and to whether they are being applied, to safeguard our communities from adverse effects.

DM8 Cumulative Impact

In regard to the new site allocations selected in the MLP Draft Consultation, there are eight new sand and gravel allocations submitted, and five of those have been chosen from the idle valley. (This includes the sherwood sandstone allocation into the MLP)

However, as the mineral operator has also submitted to the Planning Department a proposal to quarry at Barnby moor, then as this is a foreseeable development and will add to the cumulative impact, then this should have been taken into account when further sites were submitted.

The number of sites under consideration in the idle valley, are six in total, and to which five of these sites, are located on the A638 within a 4mile radius.

As Barnby Moor is under consideration, I have included it in the calculations.

These relate to 2 new greenfield sites, PA01/MP2r one submitted into the MLP Draft Consultation and one submitted into the Planning Department and 4 extensions MP21/ MP2n/ MP2m/ MP3g/

Also in a 2 mile radius off the A638, a permitted development of shale gas extraction at Tinker lane, Torworth where drilling is expected to start October 2018. The proposed quarry at Barnby Moor and nearby residents are in the air quality sensitive receptor zone.

The situation in the idle valley is that we have been given unjustly the lions share of the sites allocations submitted into the Mineral Draft Consultation.

Cumulative Policy

5.95 'as the plan is to ensure that impacts of a mineral proposal are considered in conjunction with the impacts of other past, present or foreseeable developments, in that the cumulative impact on the environment of an area, or on the amenity of a local community are fully addressed'.

The cumulative Impact occurs when over development is allowed to intrude, into the local amenity of those who live and work in those communities.

DM1 Protecting Local Amenity

The actions of protecting local amenity, is not by designating multiple quarries and shale extraction in one location. I would not consider that to be line with the preferred option, of geographical spreading the sites throughout the County, not compacting them all in a four mile radius.

This decision of choosing them all in one location, will have a negative impact on our health and wellbeing and also is contrary to the climate change policy by increasing emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrate oxide into communities where people are living and bringing up their families.

This disregard for human health by allowing mineral operators to site their quarries so close to the community, as created a situation where residents who have previously been happy to live in the area have decided that it is not fair or healthy for their children to be living so close to a site that will omit on a daily basis, dust, noise, fumes from the plant machinery, dangerous gases from the heavy goods vehicles in and out all day.

I believe those that are affected think enough is enough, and If the County Council is failing us, then the decision falls onto to those living in the community to take the decision to leave, and unfortunately that is what is happening.

DM6 Historic Environment
Scrooby MP3g

5.70. National Policy states the most important heritage assets should be conserved and that balancing the need for development against potential harm to heritage assets needs to be fully justified. The Council has a duty to protect, conserve and enhance the significance and appearance of the area's historic environment when carrying out its statutory functions and through the planning system.

As the majority of these sites are located in Scrooby, I was surprised that another extension for Scrooby is to be allocated in 2023.

This site MP3g which is only 1.3km from Scrooby village has 4,831,000m/t of sherwood sandstone, which will be worked over a period of 40 years. This just adds to the burden of increasing pollution into the area, defacing its landscape and affecting biodiversity.

In the assessment of this site, it would have a negative impact on the historic assets as the quarrying operation is 1.3km from Scrooby village and its setting. it also stated that during the operational period there could be a negative effect on the quality of life,

As the National Policy states that the most important assets will be conserved, and the Council states it has a duty to protect, conserve and enhance the appearance of the area's historic environment. As Scrooby is the birth place of William Brewster, one of founders of the Pilgrim Fathers then why is it not being protected.

Sustainable Development
SP1 (NPPF) 'presumption of favour '

This is a policy that is put in place that allows a decision not to be made on evidence or justification, it can be made on presumption of favour, which basically stating it is predetermined in its favour. The meaning of presumption in the dictionary is, a behaviour perceived as arrogant, disrespectful, and transgressing the limits of what is permitted appropriate.

This policy is not appropriate, especially in public office, where you have to show transparency. The mineral industry is a lucrative business, so making decisions in presumption of favour is not appropriate.

If this policy was applied in a Court room and you was told that the judgment was to presume in favour of the Court, you would know instantly that would be an unjust decision, and equally it still applicable in the Consultation Process, when life changing decisions are being made, to adversely change the tranquility of where you live, the air that you breath, your outlook on the landscape and the peacefulness of the countryside. If the policy is presuming in its own favour, then it is predetermining the decision.

This policy uses the term, golden thread in the presumption of favour, however I would say its the golden egg, which benefits the County Council and the mineral industry.

Site Allocations

In the idle valley, we have been subjected to major quarry developments in close proximity of each other, 5 quarries, and a shale gas extraction site, all in a four mile radius.

In view that Barnby Moor is a foreseeable development, then there are six quarries.

This development will change our rural communities from fields of wheat and corn, to noisy dusty sites with increased transport, poor air quality, with an increase in fumes, loss of landscape and character, and will change these pretty hamlets with open fields to become large dust bowls.

This area was rightly assessed as being the worse sites submitted in the County because of the detrimental impact these developments will have on the area if these are approved.

Conclusion

In view that an Independent Inspector had chosen the appropriate site from the idle valley, but his decision was not executed, then we would like to challenge the allocations from the idle valley which have been substituted for this site not being implemented.

Re: Draft Minerals Local Plan Consultation
Thank you for consulting NWT on the above. NWT strongly welcomes the MPA's continued approach in seeking to embed the large scale restoration and re-creation of biodiversity into the MLP. NWT supports the MLP's aim to create more habitat, larger areas of habitat, enhanced habitat and habitats that are linked, as this is in accordance with the aims of the Lawton Review and the Natural Environment White Paper. We have welcomed the opportunity to work with the MPA for several years on discussing the concepts behind this approach and also recognise that a great deal of good biodiversity restoration has been both approved and undertaken under the period of the current MLP. We look forward to working in a similar manner with the MPA in the future, underpinned by a shared vision for the substantive conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the County.
NWT welcome that the MPA has adopted many of the suggested forms of words as submitted in our previous responses, and we commend the MPA on a very good Draft MLP. Our comments below relate to matters of important details, but do not detract from our support for the thrust of the MLP to protect the environment through the mineral planning process and ensure that where mineral development is permitted, then exemplary biodiversity-led restoration at a landscape scale is achieved.
In this response, I have followed the convention of showing the existing text from the consultation document in italics and recommended changes in bold italics.
Page 10 Supporting documents:
The following paragraph needs to be updated:
Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping

A project undertaken for the Sherwood and Trent Valley areas to identify particular opportunities for the enhancement, expansion, creation and re-linking of wildlife habitats has been extended across the county and now covers most of the potential allocations that are the subject of this Plan. The BOM can provide important information to help to meet creation/restoration targets set in the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework and Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
Image: Courtesy
Question 1 What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
P15 Nature
This section requires explicit reference to SSSIs and LWS, particularly as the latter are often undervalued by applicants, who fail to understand their importance :
"2.13. Nottinghamshire supports a wide range of important sites for nature conservation, including a Special Area of Conservation within Sherwood Forest, near Edwinstowe, that is of international importance. A large part of central Nottinghamshire is also being considered as a possible Special Protection Area for birds which would provide protection at the international level under European regulations. The quality of Nottinghamshire's natural environment has suffered in the past from the impacts of development and there has been a significant decline in biodiversity, with losses of ancient woodland, heathland, species-rich grassland, hedgerow and wetland habitats, as well as the species that these habitats support. Despite this decline, there remains is a significant network of SSSIs and LWS across the County, representing the wide range of habitat types found on the varying geologies of the County and hosting diverse, and often scarce, species of flora and fauna. Some of these historic declines are now being halted, and in some cases reversed, with neglected sites brought into positive management and new areas of habitat created as a result of the activities of partner organisations in the Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group, by initiatives such as Environmental Stewardship and the English Woodland Grant Scheme, and as a result of restoration schemes. This action is being co-ordinated and quantified through the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan."

Vision
NWT welcomes the principles in the draft vision and strongly supports the stated aim to ensure that landscape-scale biodiversity delivery is achieved, as requested in our previous submissions. Our concerns relate to the potential misinterpretation of the good intentions of the Vision, particularly with regards to the meaning of "sustainable", we would therefore suggest the following addition:
"Over the plan period to 2036 minerals will continue to be used as efficiently as
possible across Nottinghamshire. Minerals are a valuable natural resource and
should be worked and used in an environmentally sustainable manner and where possible reused to minimise waste ".

NWT's only concern in the later paragraphs is the use of "have regard to" which is insufficiently robust to prevent token use, and its use cannot be rigorously quantified. We would expect to see a stronger requirement such as:

"All mineral workings will contribute towards 'a greener Nottinghamshire' by ensuring that the County's diverse environmental assets are protected, maintained and enhanced through appropriate working, restoration and afteruse and by ensuring that proposals take rigorous and quantifiable account of Nottinghamshire's historic environment, townscape and landscape character, biodiversity, geodiversity, agricultural land quality and public rights of way. This will result in improvements to the environment, contribute to landscape-scale biodiversity delivery, including through the improvements to existing habitats, the creation of large areas of new priority habitat, and the re-connection of ecological networks, with sensitivity to surrounding land uses. "

SO2: Providing an adequate supply of minerals
In terms of detail this paragraph appears to include some replicated text, which should be removed. NWT also expects explicit reference to protection as shown below:
"Assist in creating a prosperous, environmentally sustainable and economically vibrant County through an adequate supply of all minerals to assist in economic growth both locally and nationally. Provide sufficient land to enable a steady and adequate supply of minerals over the plan period whilst also ensuring the protection and enhancement of Nottinghamshire's natural and historic heritage resources."

SO6: Protecting and enhancing natural assets
NWT strongly support this Strategic Objective.

Question 2 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
SP1 Sustainable Development this requires updating with reference to the new NPPF. For the avoidance of doubt, NWT recommends the minor addition below:
"When considering development proposals the Council ..... will work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be permitted wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area, whilst ensuring that no irreplaceable environmental assert is lost or damaged"
Question 3 What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
NWT support Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision in principle and welcomes the explicit reference to the need for all proposed development whether new sites, extensions or unallocated proposals to be subject to the same robust environmental assessment. This is essential if sustainable development it to be achieved.

Question 4 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
NWT strongly support the principles of SP3 Biodiversity-led restoration, but have some reservations about the detail, in order to support the whole policy our comments are as follows:
We require the following addition of a 4th point to avoid potential misinterpretation of the Policy, as has been seen in recent applications:
"Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration
Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Project will be supported.
2. Where appropriate, schemes will be expected to demonstrate how restoration will contribute to the delivery of Water Framework Directive objectives.
3. Restoration schemes for allocated sites should be in line with the relevant Site Allocation Development Briefs contained within Appendix 3.
4. Proposed restoration schemes will be robustly assessed to ensure that they are not used to justify the unacceptable loss of irreplaceable habitats, or habitats that cannot be reasonable replaced within a generation in terms of diversity and quality.

Para 3.17 includes a specific reference to floodplains which seems incongruous and also does not provide a comprehensive picture of what might be achieved, hence we would recommend the following minor amendments:
" The restoration of all types of mineral voids offers a significant opportunity for the establishment or re-establishment of priority habitats, often on a large-scale, and for providing re-created linkages between fragmented blocks of specific habitat types, thereby strengthening and enhancing ecological networks."

Para 3.22.contains another slightly incongruous reference to wetland schemes and could be amended as follows:
"Minerals extraction, particularly sand and gravel extraction in the Trent Valley, but also the extraction of resources in other parts of the County, can contribute significantly towards meeting these targets and add to the success of existing priority habitat restoration schemes. Restoration schemes should be carefully considered so that they can deliver as much LBAP priority habitat as possible and that such habitats are appropriate to the relevant National Character Area. Applicants are therefore encouraged to engage in early discussions with the County Council and other appropriate bodies in relation to restoration proposals."
Para 3.24 sandstone - add wood pasture to the list of priority habitats.
Para 3.26. "LBAP priority habitats in areas where the extraction of clay, gypsum and coal takes place should reflect those habitats occurring in the vicinity and will differ depending on locality. More generally, other habitats, including Ponds and Hedgerows, can be incorporated into most restorations independent of location, but it should be noted that to be of value to wildlife, ponds should generally be less than 300sqm in size. It is also expected that Eutrophic Standing Waters (lakes )may be created as a result of quarrying, although this habitat should be minimised as far as possible in favour of the other habitat types listed above, as there is already sufficient habitat of this kind in the County..
An explanatory paragraph is required in this Policy text to make it explicit that long term restoration management of re-create habitats is required, as for most habitats meaningful outcomes cannot be achieved in 5 years. This is reflected later in the MLP but needs explaining in this section. There should also be reference to the fact that extended aftercare and long term protection of restored sites is required, as the restoration cannot be used as a partial justification for the mineral scheme, if the habitats will not exist in the long term. Sadly, cases such as this have been seen in recent years in the County, where the habitat has been lost once the aftercare has ceased, or in one case, threatened by development before it has even been restored, but where the mineral has already been extracted.

Question 5 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change
NWT support the principles of seeking to reduce greenhouse gases produced by mineral extraction processes, but we believe this policy should include a target to reduce extraction of hydrocarbons in the County in order to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Question 6 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
NWT supports much of this Policy but the text requires mention of impacts on habitat from NOx and other forms of Nitrogen that are specifically derived from transport associated with mineral development. The designation of part of Nottinghamshire as a SNAP (Shared Nitrogen Action Plan) area by NE is very pertinent in this regard and should be referenced.
Question 7 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
NWT broadly support Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment, particularly the explicit need for protection of habitats and species as listed in paras 3.47 and 3.48.
The following amendments are required to ensure consistency, particularly the removal of "as far as possible" which can be misinterpreted:
"3.49. It is therefore important to ensure that new minerals development is correctly managed and that no adverse impacts occur to designated sites at all levels ,or priority habitats and species. Policy SP3 promotes a biodiversity-led restoration approach which seeks to maximise the biodiversity gains resulting from the restoration of mineral sites."
Further to my substantive previous submissions on the distinction between valuable agricultural soils and the need for them to be in agricultural use and what that use may comprise, NWT strongly welcome the recognition that appropriate restoration can safeguard those soils whilst still creating priority habitats. This is explained later in the Draft MLP but should also be cross-referenced here as follows in para 3.60:
.3.60. Minerals development often involves large areas of land ........County's finite agricultural soils. However, appropriate management and restoration of mineral workings can secure the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils, and the re-creation of priority habitats can protect those soils for the future, particularly from the damage caused by arable practices, whilst ensuring that the soils are available should they be needed for future food production"
The damage and loss of soils through intensive farming practices has been recognised as a serious issue at a national and global level. Reversion of land to grassland, and other habitats, from arable use has been extensively promoted by successive governments and supported through substantial public funds. The irreparable damage that occurs to soils from excessive tillage, addition of mineral nutrients, over-cropping and loss of organic matter from arable practices is a serious problem and restoration of mineral sites provides an opportunity to secure those soils for the future by their protection under habitats such as grassland and woodland. Soils under BAP priority habitat can also be effective in capturing CO2, rather than losing it, as happens under arable cropping.
Para 3.67 requires specific reference as follows:
"The majority of minerals are transported by road due to the relatively short distances to local or regional markets. Minerals proposals therefore need to take into account the likely impacts upon both the local highway network and nearby communities and sensitive habitats arising from increased levels of traffic. Potential impacts could include congestion, road safety, noise, dust, and vehicle emissions. ...etc"

Question 11 What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
NWT recognises that the MPA must make adequate provision for minerals supply and so supports the principle of Policy MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision but not all the detail. Many of the comments below relate to our concerns about the details of sites, rather than the principle of the proposed allocation per se. We strongly welcome that our recommendations for priority habitats have been included in the Development Briefs, and the use of such Briefs is to be wholly supported. There are some allocations, however, that cause concern in principle and these are clearly highlighted in the following text.
Where NWT objects to the details, rather than the principle of the proposed extensions, further details that NWT considers are pertinent to the Development Brief and are of concern are highlighted in bold italics, in most cases our objection to the allocation would be removed by the resolution of these issues. Lack of objection for an allocation, does not, of course, presuppose that we would support an application, as our position would be based on the results of detailed EIA.

MP2l Bawtry Road West - Object to details
NWT note that the footprint of this proposed extension allocation is quite small, but would take at least 5-7 years to be worked and is in close proximity to both the Slaynes Lane LWS, Rugged Butts LWS and Units 1 and 2 of the Idle Washlands SSSI. Whilst the extension appears to be on arable land, UK BAP/Sn41 habitats may be present within or in proximity to the proposed site boundary, which could be subject to direct or indirect impacts, including noise, dust and NOx effects. The effects of further dewatering in this area on the groundwater-dependent LWS and SSSIs, the newly restored groundwater-dependent habitats at Newington Quarry and surface water effects on the nearby woodland should be particularly robustly assessed. Protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and the ditches within the proposed site boundary, and in this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, particularly given that the current approved restoration scheme is mainly to species-poor pasture of limited ecological value and small, scattered copses. NWT note that no best and most versatile soils are present

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and welcomes the clear expectation in the Development Brief that this should be the case. We would expect, however, that the consideration of the extension should be an opportunity to review the restoration for the current site and to ensure that the whole scheme is properly restored to high value habitats, as the scheme appears to have developed in a piecemeal manner over several years as extensions have been granted. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.

MP2m Scrooby Thompson Land - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is close to a number of LWS, and in proximity to the Scrooby Top Quarry SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the Mattersey LWS complex, which may be affected by dewatering. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation appears to be mainly in arable use, but protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and ditches within the proposed allocation boundary, and in this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. NWT welcome the recognition in the Brief to the proximity of this site to Annexe 1 bird species and potential inclusion in the Sherwood pSPA. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and welcomes the explicit requirement in the Development Brief that this should primarily be the case. NWT recognises that some 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected within the restored site by being utilised under species-rich grassland which can be grazed and/or cut for hay. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.
MP2n Scrooby North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to Scrooby Sand Pits LWS, and in proximity to several other LWS around Mattersey and the Scrooby Top Quarry SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to Scrooby Sand Pits LWS, which may be affected by dewatering. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
Protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and the ditches within the proposed allocation boundary, and in this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. NWT welcome the recognition in the Brief to the proximity of this site to Annexe 1 bird species and potential inclusion in the Sherwood pSPA. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement LWS habitats nearby.

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and welcomes the explicit requirement in the Development Brief that this should primarily be the case. NWT recognises that a small area of 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected within the restored site by being utilised under species-rich grassland, which can be grazed and/or cut for hay. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.

MP2o Langford Lowfields south and west - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to Langford Lowfields LWS and the River Trent at Holme LWS, whilst The Ness LWS is across the River. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under both arable and permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows, ditches and the Slough Dyke within the proposed allocation boundary, and also the adjacent River Trent, including bats, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT welcome the stated aim that this restoration would be biodiversity-led, as we would expect. But, the location of Langford West immediately adjacent to the River Trent provides an important opportunity to secure natural flood risk management and biodiversity outcomes through the re-connection of the Trent to its floodplain, channel braiding and the creation of wet grassland floodplain /grazing marsh. It is therefore disappointing that the Brief states that there would be no excavation within 45m of the Trent and would expect this opportunity to be properly examined. NWT would expect the proposed habitats would be appropriate for NWT's Trent Valley Living Landscape Area and for the Trent and Belvoir Vales NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount.

MP2p Langford Lowfields North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to Langford Lowfields LWS, includes the Horse Pool at Collingham LWS and is immediately across the Trent from the Cromwell Pits LWS. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under mainly arable with small areas of permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows, and the adjacent River Trent, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT welcome that this restoration would be biodiversity-led, as we would expect. The location of Langford North in a meander of the Trent provides an important opportunity to secure natural flood risk management and biodiversity outcomes through the re-connection of the Trent to its floodplain, channel braiding and the creation of wet grassland floodplain /grazing marsh, so we would expect this opportunity to be properly examined. The proposed habitats would be appropriate for NWT's Trent Valley Living Landscape Area and for the Trent and Belvoir Vales NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount.
MP2q East Leake North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to the Sheepwash Brook Wetlands LWS. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to this site, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under arable use, but protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees and hedgerows along the boundary, the ditches and the Sheepwash Brook, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, with habitats appropriate for the Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire Wolds NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount. NWT recognises that some 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected for the future within the restored site by being utilised under species-rich grassland, which can be grazed and/or cut for hay.

NWT are surprised by the withdrawal of Besthorpe Eastern Extension as an allocation , as this allocation has the potential to achieve restoration benefits over the current land use, and also to achieve better public access to a wildlife-rich landscape.
New Site Allocations
MP2r Botany Bay - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is close to a number of LWS, including the Chesterfield Canal which runs along the boundary, Daneshill Lakes LNR and LWS and also in proximity to the Sutton and Lound Gravel Pits SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the Chesterfield Canal and the SSSI. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation appears to be mainly in arable use, but protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and ditches within the proposed allocation boundary, and the adjacent canal and woodlands, including bats and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and so we welcome the explicit reference to this in the Brief. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA ,therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount. NWT recognises that some 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected for the future within the restored site by being utilised eg. under species-rich grassland, which can be grazed and/or cut for hay.

MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis - Object in principle
NWT note that an application is already under consideration for this proposed allocation area, thus our comments are consistent with our response to that application. This proposed allocation includes or is immediately adjacent to the Barton Flash LWS, Barton Pond and Drain LWS, Brandshill Wood LWS, Brandshill Grassland LWS and Brandshill Marsh LWS and in close proximity to the Attenborough Gravel Pits SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under extensive permanent pasture, species- rich grassland, and arable use, and protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species are present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and woodlands, the ditches and ponds, and the nearby River Trent, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing and also a number of protected bird species. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT fundamentally object to this allocation, on the basis of the substantive impacts to LWS, SN 41 Habitats of Principal Importance and Species of Principal Importance, and protected species. The high quality of the existing habitats present in this proposed allocation renders it an unsuitable site for a new quarry.

Were the site to be allocated, NWT expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, with habitats appropriate for NWT's Trent Valley Living Landscape Area and for the Trent Valley Washlands NCA, and note that our previous comments on suitable habitats have been included in the brief However, explicit reference should be made to the fact that large, open water bodies are not a priority habitat in this area as there is already a sufficient amount.

NWT consider that the scheme as proposed would involve an overall reduction in BAP habitat and the loss and degradation of a number of LWS and features used by protected species.


Question 12 What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?
MP3g Scrooby Top North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is in proximity to the Scrooby Sand Pits LWS and Serlby Park Golf Course LWS, and appears to include the Scrooby Top Quarry SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The impacts of hydrological changes may be particularly pertinent as would the impacts of Nitrogen deposition on species-rich grasslands. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under mainly arable use, with some permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees and hedgerows along the boundary and the ditches including bats, herptiles and badgers. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. NWT welcome the recognition in the Brief to the proximity of this site to protected Annexe 1 bird species and potential inclusion in the Sherwood ppSPA. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT note the proposal that restoration should include agricultural and biodiversity-led elements. We expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, but this may include extensively managed, ecologically-rich agricultural habitats, such as acidic grassland or species-rich neutral grassland which could be grazed and/or cut for hay, as long as their long term management can be secured. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.

MP3e Bestwood II East and MP3f Bestwood II North - Object to both in principle
NWT note that an application is already under consideration for the proposed allocation area of Bestwood 2 East, thus our comments are consistent with our response to that application. These proposed allocations are entirely located within Longdale Plantation LWS and in close proximity to Longdale Heath LWS. There is therefore the potential for major direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for habitat loss, noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. Consequently, NWT fundamentally object to these allocations, as the loss of a LWS on this scale is unacceptable.
The proposed allocations are entirely within a LWS, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in the woodland, including bats, birds, herptiles and badgers. Were these sites to be allocated, any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats adjacent. NWT therefore welcome that the habitats listed in our previous submissions have been included in the Brief, but this does not indicate our support for these allocations.


Question 13 What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand over the plan period?
MP4 Crushed Rock (limestone) provision
NWT supports this policy in principle, particularly the requirement in para 4.58 to review the restoration scheme to ensure that it is consistent with Policy SP2-Biodiversity Led Restoration. As previously submitted, NWT would expect the priority habitats to be appropriate for the Southern Magnesian Limestone NCA and our Magnesian Limestone Living Landscape Area, ie.:
* Calcareous grassland
* Ash-dominated woodland
* Streams, ponds
* Hedgerows

Question 15 What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?
MP6c Woodborough Lane - Support
NWT does not object to the proposed allocation of the Woodborough Lane site in principle, as the area does not appear to either contain or be in proximity to any SSSIs, LWS, LNR or Ancient Woodlands. There may, however, be BAP/Sn 41 HPI or SPI present, and there may also be the potential for indirect impacts on important habitats or species which would require rigorous assessment of impacts. It is essential that at this stage the requirement for biodiversity-led restoration is explicit and the expected habitats are clearly identified, so NWT welcomes their inclusion in the Development Brief.

Question 16 What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?
Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) - Object in principle
NWT note that this proposed allocation includes the Cowtham House Arable LWS and the Shire Dyke LWS within the boundary, and is also in close proximity to the Staple Lane Ditch LWS, Grange Lane Drain LWS and Hawton Tip Grasslands LWS. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The impacts of hydrological changes may be particularly pertinent to the closest LWS as would the impacts of Nitrogen deposition on species-rich grasslands. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed rigorously. If the LWS cannot be removed from within the site boundary or shown to be unaffected by the working area, NWT object to this allocation.
The proposed allocation is under mainly arable use, with some permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees and hedgerows along the boundary, the ditches and the Shire Dyke and its associated grassland buffer, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

The Development Brief states that restoration would involve "the return of land to agriculture and nature conservation corridors" . NWT expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, with the majority of the area restored to high value priority habitats, not least to outweigh the restoration of the current and nearby gypsum quarry sites, where large areas have been restored to arable land of low wildlife value. There would be a role for extensively managed, ecologically-rich, agricultural habitats, such as species-rich calcareous grassland, but this is only if the long term management can be secured. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for the Trent and Belvoir Vales NCA, therefore we welcome the inclusion of the habitats listed in or previous submissions.
Question 17 What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the plan period?
NWT support the policy in general, noting that any future allocations/extensions would have to be compliant with the policies in this MLP and with particular regard to the fact this area falls within the ppSPA , with the need for cumulative assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment that follows from that.

Question 18 What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?
NWT has concerns that the text does not explain the importance of the remaining scarce fragments of calcareous habitats that are found on the limestone resource in the west of the County and that the protection, management and expansion of these should be a prerequisite of any new building stone scheme. Any new quarry should add to the strength of the ecological network for calcareous grassland and woodland, not detract from it. The proximity of SSSs and many LWS to Whitwell and Creswell underlines this point.
Question 19 What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?
NWT has concerns that the text does not explain the importance of the remaining scarce fragments of calcareous habitats that are found on the limestone resource in the west of the County and that the protection, management and expansion of these should be a prerequisite of any new building stone scheme. Any new quarry should add to the strength of the ecological network for calcareous grassland and woodland, not detract from it.

Question 20 What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the plan period?
MP11 Coal - In the absence of Development Briefs, the policy should include specific reference that any coal development should contribute substantively to priority habitat restoration and re-creation in accordance with the appropriate NCA and NWT Living Landscape (LL) areas as follows:
Sherwood NCA (Sherwood Heathlands LL area): lowland heath, acid grassland, small ponds (especially for amphibians), marsh, oak-birch woodland, wood pasture.
Southern Magnesian Limestone (Magnesian Limestone LL area): calcareous grassland, ash-dominated woodland, streams, ponds, hedgerows
Coal Measures (Erewash Valley LL area): wet grassland/floodplain grazing marsh, species-rich neutral grassland (meadows), ponds, rivers and streams, oak-dominated woodland, acid grassland/lowland heath, hedgerows, ditches.

This could be included in the justification text as above and also referenced in the Policy wording as below:
"...Reworking colliery spoil tips/lagoons
4. Applications will be supported for the reworking of colliery spoil tips/lagoons where the environmental and economic benefits of the development, including addressing the likelihood of spontaneous combustion and substantial environmental improvement of the site, outweigh the environmental or amenity impacts of the development or the loss of established landscape and wildlife features. All such development should result in the re-creation of priority BAP/Sn41 habitats appropriate to the relevant NCA as listed in the text in para xx."

Question 21 What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
MP 11 hydrocarbons - NWT agree that the wording of the policy should make clear the need for robust environmental impact assessment at all stages of hydrocarbon exploration and extraction.
NWT consider that there should be an explicit statement that hydrocarbon extraction should reduce in order reduce the emissions that contribute to climate change.
NWT also consider that with regard to the need for environmental protection , there should be a presumption against unconventional hydrocarbon developments . Shale gas extraction is relatively untested in the UK, a very different working environment to the US, and in the last 2 years where it has occurred it has been demonstrated that operators are unable to robustly and consistently meet the requirements of their planning conditions, which have been imposed to protect the environment. Therefore NWT cannot support this Policy as it stands.
Further detail in the accompanying text is required to cover the following issues:
Oil - Specific consideration is needed for the requirement of new oil extraction schemes to result in enhanced priority habitats, as in some cases the relatively small scale of such scheme, but large number of sites, has lead to incremental impacts and degradation of habitats over several years, which has led to an overall loss of biodiversity when considered in the round. This should be recognised in any future provision through a robust assessment of likely cumulative effects on biodiversity.
CMM - given the location of most suitable seams/former mine sites, specific reference should be made to the potential for disturbance to nightjar and woodlark and need to assess the cumulative effects of nitrogen emissions from burning CMM on sensitive heathland habitats.
CBM and Shale Gas - The relatively unproven nature of these technologies when applied to the UK should predicate a highly precautionary approach, particularly given the unpredictable nature of the behaviour of the sandstone geology of the County which overlays much of the northern shale beds. This unpredictability is evidenced both by deep-mine accidents in Sherwood in recent history where unexpected pockets of methane have been encountered in fractured stone and also by the above-ground subsidence effects of planned mining activity, which do not always appear to happen as predicted by the industry. Both CBM, and Shale Gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing have the potential for far-reaching impacts on the quantity and quality of surface and groundwaters and through effects of noise and vibration, which may impact valuable habitats and sensitive species. Robust and very precautionary assessment is therefore required of any such schemes.

Question 22 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local amenity?

NWT strongly support this Policy in principle but believe that the following should be added to the list:
" ...loss of greenspace , this is significant impact on amenity for local people, and loss can be contrary to the needs to support good health and wellbeing in local communities"
Question 25 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?

NWT very much welcome and support the thrust of this policy and note that many of our previous comments have been incorporated into the policy wording and supporting text. There some matters however that still need further explanation to ensure that there is no ambiguity in their interpretation.

"5.49. Local Sites are designated at a local level and include Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) and Local Geological Sites (LGSs). Whilst designated at a local level, these sites are of at least County ecological value according to criteria adopted by all the Nottinghamshire LPAs and the MPA. Some may also meet SSSI designation criteria but have not been designated, as only a representative suite of habitats are designated as SSSIs even though others may qualify. Some, but not all, Ancient woodlands are designated as LWSs within Nottinghamshire and are considered to be an irreplaceable habitat. Together, these designated sites form part of the country's or County's ? irreplaceable natural capital and the Minerals Local Plan will contribute towards their protection and encourage and support opportunities for enhancement."

It is essential to explain this in the supporting text as we regularly see this sort of statement misinterpreted as LWS being of only "local" ie. district level value, rather than of County importance.
NWT strongly support the text of paragraph 5.52 which provides a much welcome clarification of how "outweighing" benefits, or otherwise, should be assessed.
.

In para 5.54. add "Where compensation is required, this should ensure that there is no net loss of habitat, provide like for like replacements of habitat (recognising that newly created habitats take many years to reach the quality and diversity of well established habitats.) and make up for any lost connections between habitats. Where significant impacts on species are predicted, compensation schemes should also provide overall habitat improvements, in terms of quality or area, in comparison to the habitat that is
being lost. Use of the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric may be helpful in undertaking assessments to determine the compensatory habitat required "

Update paragraph 5.57. Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping has been substantially completed for approximately 75% of Nottinghamshire, including the Trent Valley. The study should be used to help inform proposals for mineral workings and restoration.

Para 5.58. "In order to assess biodiversity impacts fully, applicants will be required to carry out ecological surveys as part of their application in order that a robust ecological impacts assessment can be undertaken. "


Question 29 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM8: Cumulative impact?

NWT support this Policy in principle but there should be a specific reference to cumulative impacts on habitats and species.



Question 31 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?

Safeguarding is obviously important but should also be underpinned by robust science and a reasonable approach, in order to prevent interpretation that prevents restoration of a wide range of wetland habitats across large areas of the County. NWT therefore welcomes the recognition that nature conservation after-uses can be compatible with safeguarding, but in reality, we have sometimes found this to be used in a simplistic way, therefore we require the addition of the following:

"5.108. This policy does not preclude any specific forms of restoration or after-use but seeks to ensure that aviation safety is fully considered and addressed through appropriate consultation, avoidance and mitigation. Advice Notes on the safeguarding of aerodromes have been produced by the Airport Operators' Association and General Aviation Awareness Council. It is important that safeguarding representations are made on the basis of an accurate assessment of the likely effects of risks such as bird-strike depending on the type and use of the airfield, as this changes the likelihood of hazards occurring."


Question 32 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM11: Planning obligations?
NWT welcome this Policy in principle but consider that it requires further detail on how long the Obligations should remain in force, so that there can be certainty over the protection of restored habitats in the long term

Question 33 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

NWT strongly support the principles of this Policy and have worked with NCC for a long time on the concepts that inform the Policy. We agree with the Policy wording with the exception of the following:


"3. All applications should normally be accompanied by a detailed restoration plan, this is particularly important where the potential for the restored habitats is being used as part of the case for the acceptability of the scheme. It is possible that there may be some exceptional circumstances where it is impracticable to submit full restoration details at the planning Stage, but this must be robustly justified, and proposals should include:

a) An overall concept plan with sufficient detail to demonstrate that the scheme is feasible in both technical and economic terms and is consistent with the County Council's biodiversity-led restoration strategy; and
b) Illustrative details of contouring, landscaping and any other relevant information as appropriate."

"..Aftercare
9. Restoration proposals will be subject to a minimum five year period of aftercare. Where proposals or elements of proposals, such as features of biodiversity interest, require a longer period of management the proposal will only be permitted if it includes details of the period of extended aftercare and how this will be achieved. Where the creation of new priority habitats is being used as part of the case for the acceptability of the scheme, it is essential that an extended aftercare period of at least 20 years must be secured, otherwise the justification for the scheme cannot be accepted. "


Para 5.124. Most mineral workings are on agricultural land. In general where the best and
most versatile land is taken for mineral extraction, it is important that the potential for land to be returned to an agricultural after-use be maintained through appropriate landform and soil profiles. It is not necessary, however, for the land to be returned to agricultural use per se, and the creation of priority habitats will better protect and conserve the soils in the long term".


Question 34 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM13: Incidental
mineral extraction?

NWT support this Policy in principle, but it requires explicit reference to the fact that " in most cases such applications will require the same levels of EIA as primary extraction applications."

Question 36 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM15: Borrow pits
NWT require the addition of a specific reference to the requirement for proper EcIA and biodiversity-led restoration in order to offset the impacts of borrow pit use..
Question 38 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM17: Mineral exploration?

Seismic surveys can impact protected and sensitive bird and mammal species, particularly where undertaken in the breeding season, therefore the following is required:

"5.161. Most Seismic surveys have little environmental impact. However, noise and vibration can raise concerns when carried out in sensitive areas, particularly where sensitive fauna are present. This is especially the case when shot hole drilling is used and/or where surveys are carried out over a prolonged period. A particular concern is the interference to archaeological remains. Operators are encouraged to contact the County Council's archaeologists and ecologist prior to undertaking surveys. It is particularly important to ensure that species protected by law would not be affected by noise, vibration or other effects."

Glossary
LWS should be included in the glossary with a reference to the Site Selection handbook, as this is an area often poorly understood by applicants.

Brett Aggregates Ltd (BAL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert and Sons Limited (Brett), the aggregates, building materials and civil engineering business, which was established over a century ago. It is the largest independent producer of sand and gravel in the UK. BAL manages all Brett's quarry, marine dredged and recycled aggregates together with coated roadstone operations.
1.2 Following withdrawal of the Submission Draft of the Minerals Local Plan (MLP) in 2017 Nottinghamshire County Council (the County) published an Issues an Options document in respect of a revised MLP together with a Call for Sites. The County is now consulting on a Draft MLP and seeking responses by the 28th September 2018.
1.3 BAL's interest in Nottinghamshire is in respect of aggregate bearing land adjacent to the River Trent at Shelford. This land represents a significant sand and gravel resource, the future development of which will ensure that Nottinghamshire, in particular the south of the County including the City of Nottingham, will be able to meet a steady and adequate supply of aggregates throughout the plan period whilst minimizing the amount of mineral miles travelled on the County's road network by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) delivering aggregate. It will also provide for the delivery of material using the River Trent and the existing wharf at Colwick to bring aggregate into the established industrial area of the City for use in the production of concrete. This approach accords with National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF) in respect of providing a steady and adequate supply of mineral and sustainable development objectives.
The comments made in this submission relate only to the questions raised by the County in the Draft MLP document and do not alter BAL's submissions in respect of the withdrawn MLP. The format of this response is to address those questions which relate to BAL's area of interest. As the MLP preparation proceeds and further information becomes available other matters may arise on which BAL may wish to comment.
Question 1. What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
2.1 Nottinghamshire has a varied population distribution and it would be helpful to show on Plan 1 the relative sizes of the principal towns and Nottingham City in terms of population size. This would be helpful in understanding where demand for aggregate is likely to arise.
2.2 It would also be useful to show where the boundaries of adjoining Mineral Planning Authorities intersect with the boundary for Nottinghamshire. This information would be helpful in understanding the spatial inter relationship with the neighbouring counties as there is significant interaction between them in respect of mineral production and demand, see later comments.
2.3 Generally BAL agrees that the draft vision is appropriate. In particular the need to ensure that mineral development is concentrated in locations that offer the greatest level of accessibility to major markets and growth areas.
QUESTION 2. What do you think of the draft strategic policy?
3.1 Generally BAL agrees with the strategic issues, in particular securing a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire.
QUESTION 3. What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
4.1 BAL object to this policy firstly on the basis that priority should not be given to the extension of existing sites where this would lead to a skewed geographical distribution of mineral production resulting in aggregate having to be transported longer distances and/or imported from surrounding counties. This is particularly the case in Nottinghamshire where there is strong demand in the south of the County and where the main sites of the previous MLP are worked out thus limiting the opportunity for extensions to just one small quarry (see below for further justification in respect of this issue).
4.2 BAL also object to the policy not including reference to giving priority to sites where non road transport, particularly the use of the River Trent, is proposed. This is particularly important as the ability to barge material is given priority in other policies and site selection.
Question 4. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
5.1 BAL supports this policy.
Question 5. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
6.1 BAL supports this policy but would wish to see the inclusion of non road transport methods in the criteria which will assist in delivering the policy.
Question 6. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
7.1 BAL supports this policy.
Question 7. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
8.1 There is a tension between the policy in respect of the effect on Best and Most Versatile Land (BMVL) and the biodiversity led restoration proposals which underpin the Plan. This is highlighted at para. 3.60 where reference is made to the ability to safeguard best and most versatile "soils" rather than land. It would be appropriate if this distinction were also to be made in the policy wording in order to avoid the conflict between the wetland restoration proposals and the preservation of BMVL.
Question 9. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
9.1 BAL supports the policy, in particular the safeguarding of Colwick Wharf although its location and designation could be made clearer on Plan 4.
Question 10. What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?
10.1 We object to the draft approach being taken .National Policy in relation to planning for future aggregate demand is to be found in NPPF. For an MLP to be found sound1 it is necessary for it to be
* Positively prepared
* Justified
* Effective
* Consistent with national policy
10.2 The assessment of need on which the County bases its MLP is an essential component of this process as follows. For the plan to be positively prepared it must look forward on the basis that proposed development as set out in other plans and proposals will come forward and that need must be met through adequate allocation of resources in the MLP. This requirement must also be met for the MLP to be justified and effective.
10.3 The requirement for the MLP to be consistent with national policy in relation to assessing need and in particular the calculation of an adequate landbank requirement for an MLP can be found in the NPPF as follows2
* Preparing an annual Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA) based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information.
Ensuring that large landbanks bound up in a very few sites do not stifle competition.
10.4 It is clear from the NPPF that the 10 year rolling average should be a starting point and that other local factors should be taken into account. National Planning Practice Guidance gives advice as to what local factors should be taken into account. The guidance is that relevant local information used should be that which seeks to look ahead rather than just relying on past sales. The guidance goes onto advise that such information may include levels of planned construction and house building in the local area but also " throughout the country" 3
10.5 The Planning Officers Society in conjunction with the Mineral Products Association have also produced useful practical guidance in assessing need and in particular what sort of local information should be used in considering the adequacy of the 10 year rolling average. These include4:-
* Geological resources being exhausted
* Trends and forecasts of population change including information in Local Plans on house building.
* Validated data on aggregate use in construction provided by the MPA.
* Planned major infrastructure projects including those within the County and 30 miles beyond as detailed in the National Infrastructure Plan 2016-2020. Also those projects included in Local Economic Partnerships Growth Deals and Strategic Economic Plans together with construction projects identified in District and Unitary Authority's infrastructure Development Plans. Planned highway improvement and maintenance works should also be considered.
* Local Regional and national economic forecasts from various sources.
* Information from the minerals industry on the availability of marine materials.
* Major new sources of recycled or secondary material becoming available.
* New environmental constraints being identified in aggregate producing areas or in proximity to them.
10.6 In looking at the appropriateness of the rolling 10 year average as the basis for calculating future demand it is essential that the veracity of the information is examined forensically. In particular are there any factors which have influenced the data such that it does not truly reflect the production of aggregate in the County to the extent that it cannot be relied upon to predict future need. In terms of the basis of a future MLP will it result in a plan which is not justified or effective in terms of whether the plan is sound.
10.7 Geological resources being exhausted and the issue of Finningly Quarry. Finningley Quarry is situated on the northern border of Nottinghamshire where is abuts Doncaster. It should be noted that the latest Nottinghamshire LAA (Oct 2017) advises that the annual production figures for the County have been affected by production at Finningley moving across the border into some of the years covered by the latest 10 years of production5. If this situation were to continue to operate in the future, that is production moving in and out of the County then its inclusion in the 10 year rolling average would be a sound basis for predicting future need. However, the Notts LAA advises6 that the reserves in both Doncaster and Rotherham (also referred to as South Yorkshire) are extremely limited and future supplies will be coming from Nottinghamshire, in particular the quarry at Sturton le Steeple which has permitted reserves.
10.8 This being the case it is necessary to look at the impact Finningley Quarry moving across the border has had on the last 10 years production in Nottinghamshire. This can be done by looking at the Doncaster and Rotherham LAA. Whilst individual quarry production is confidential the explanation below Table 1 makes it clear that production decreased in 2010 from 0.5MT to 0.16MT probably due to production at Finningley moving across the border into Nottinghamshire. Looking at Table 1 production from 2006 to 2015 was either 0.4/5MT or 0.14/5/6MT which indicates that at the higher levels production at Finningley was in Doncaster and at the lower levels it was in Nottinghamshire. Consequently from Table 1 we can deduce which years there would have been a shortfall in the Finningley contribution to the Nottinghamshire landbank and we can calculate the annual difference this will make by averaging the higher and lower figures and subtracting the lower from the higher. The difference is calculated as 0.3MT (0.45MT less 0.15MT).
10.9 The Nottinghamshire 10 year rolling average for sand and gravel is based on the years 2007 to 2016 whilst the Rotherham and Doncaster LAA is based on 2006 to 2015. However the Notts LAA does advise that in 2016 production in Finningley was across the border in Doncaster. This means it is possible to estimate the amount of the shortfall in the Nottinghamshire 2007 to 2016 production figures attributable to production at Finningley being in Doncaster. The calculation is based on the table below.
10.10 The 10 year rolling average if being used to predict future requirement in Nottinghamshire should now be calculated using 10 years annual production which includes the Finningley missing years as detailed above. That requires an addition 1.5MT to be added to the 17.04MT to give 18.54MT and results in a 10 year average annual sales of 1.85MT compared with the County's calculation of 1.70MT. The contribution of Finningley Quarry to the landbank is clearly a significant local factor which should be taken into account in using the 10 year rolling average as the basis for predicting future need.
10.11 Population Change and house building. The second local factor which needs to be taken into account in reviewing the 10 year rolling average is house building rates in the County and what is now planned. The County's latest LAA (October 2017, December 2016 data) sets out the planned house building rates for the individual planning authorities in the County. It is important to note that these are not maximum rates but are those which have been rigorously tested through the Local Plan processes including Strategic Housing Market Assessments and in some cases full Independent Examination procedures. It is also important to note that the Local Plans on which these house building rates are based were using pre 2014 Office of National Statistic (ONS) data. The 2014 when applied to the districts in Nottinghamshire will invariably lead to an increase in requirement. Consequently the impact of the planned house building rates should be considered as a minimum on which aggregate requirement should be based.
10.12 At Appendix 1 is a Table 2 which shows the house building rates for the local planning authority areas in Nottinghamshire over the 10 year period covering that being used by the County for the 10 year rolling average. The information contained within Table 2 has been taken from the Annual Monitoring Reports and other documents produced by the LPAs. The extracts from these documents can also be found at Appendix 1.
10.13 From Table 2 it can be seen that the average annual house building rate per LPA area over the past 10 years has been 351 units per annum. This figure is directly comparable with the average annual sand and gravel production rates calculated from the past 10 year's production. Table 2 uses the future house building rates deduced by the County in the October 2017 LAA7 to show that the average future rate will be 571 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 220 dwellings per annum and represents a 63% increase. It is essential that this increase is taken as the minimum as it is based on solid evidence, it is not stated as a maximum so may be exceeded and is likely to be an underestimate based on the 2014 ONS data and the latest government advice that house building must increase. The population of Nottinghamshire including the County is expected to grow from 1.13 million in 2016 to 1.25 million in 2036. This growth will require at least the planned house building detailed on Table 2 which is based on the lower pre ONS 2014 estimates and it should be noted that as house building picks up following the recession the annual average rate per authority has already reached 468 dwellings per annum (2015/6) which is 81% of the planned annual requirement.
10.14 Validated data on aggregate use in construction is provided by the MPA. The October 2017 LAA references the use of aggregates in house building as being 20% of total production. Although it should be noted that at the recent examination into the Oxfordshire MLP 35% was used. It should be noted that house building requires significant support construction such as local roads, schools, village halls etc.
10.15 Planned major infrastructure projects. The October 2017 LAA notes that no further major infrastructure projects have been identified since the production of the previous LAA (January 2017). However, the January 2017 LAA was based on significantly higher rolling 10 year average taking into account partly pre recession construction levels and, therefore, capturing higher level of construction. With the move to the most recent 10 year rolling average this is no longer the case and the LAA needs to recognize that planned infrastructure for the future is significantly higher than accounted for by the 10 year rolling average which now almost solely covering a recession period when infrastructure projects were virtually non-existent. An adjustment to the 10 year average which determines the future landbank needs to be made in order for the MLP to be based on realistic future aggregate need.
10.16 Infrastructure identified in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016 to 2021 for the Nottinghamshire area is:-
* Midland Main Line. Further electrification to Nottingham.
* East Coast Mainline. Station, signaling and track works to facilitate longer new Super Express Trains.
* HS2.
It should be noted that the time period for this infrastructure plan is just 5 years and represents only 16% of the MLP plan period. Also included in the plan is reference to the Midlands Engine and the proposal for carrying out feasibility studies in respect of upgrades to the M1 and Smart motorway improvements together with improvements to the A46 Newark bypass and its intersection with the A1.
10.17 The Local Enterprise Partnership D2N2 (covering Nottingham and Derby and parts of both counties) has produced a programme which includes a target to create 50,000 jobs and to build 77,000 dwellings. The dwellings are included in Local Plans but D2N2 are intending to ensure that infrastructure delivery does not frustrate the building of the dwellings.
10.18 East Midlands airport which lies alongside the HS2 route is planning to increase from 4.3 to 10 million passengers and 300,000 to 700,000t of freight by 2040. The majority of this development will occur in the MLP plan period. A major freight terminal is also planned for the M1 j23a/24. Whilst this is in Leicestershire it lies within the 30 mile zone beyond the County boundary which the POS/MPA advice considers should be included in any future assessment for aggregate provision within a County.
10.19 Local regional and national economic forecast. The latest MPA forecasts (February 2019) suggest that aggregate demand will have increased by 19% by 2019 compared to 2015. Infrastructure growth is expected to be 56% from 2015 to 2019. In the longer term replenishment rates for sand and gravel show that for every 100 tonnes of material used planning permissions for replacement accounts for only 56 tonnes indicating that in the future shortages of supply will be apparent.
10.20 Availability of marine materials. Nottinghamshire is a landlocked county and some distance from any marine sourced aggregate landing facility. Consequently the material is not used in the County.
10.21 Major new sources of recycled or secondary material. For Nottinghamshire inert waste processing (considered suitable for recycled aggregate production) has now recovered to pre recession rates. However, whilst power station ash is capable of being substituted for primary aggregates the 3 coal fired power stations within the County are all planned to be closed by 2025. It would, therefore, be unwise to rely on any further increase in recycled output and in fact a reduction in availability of this material should be planned.
10.22 New environmental constraints. No new environmental constraints which could restrict aggregate extraction in the County have been identified. Locally the ban on extraction in the Peak District National Park has been accounted for by Derbyshire planning to increase production in the rest of the County by an amount equivalent to that to be lost through lack of production in the National Park.
10.23 It is apparent from the above information that there are a number of factors pointing to the need to modify the rolling 10 year average if a robust prediction of future need is to be made. The evidence is that the figure will need to be increased on the basis that during the MLP period more aggregate will have to be exported to South Yorkshire, a greater number of dwellings will be built, more jobs created and more infrastructure built. Of these elements it has been possible to quantify numerically only the impact of the increase in future exports to South Yorkshire and house building rates. House building is considered to represent the use of only 20 to 35% of the total supply of aggregate. However, house building is a key component in providing dwellings for new employees who will occupy newly constructed factories and commercial premises. House building also drives infrastructure provision including roads, such as those around Newark, schools, hospitals etc. lt is, therefore, proposed that the house building rates of the past 10 years be compared with aggregate use of the same period and then used to predict future aggregate requirement.
10.24 Taking the 1.85MTPA (10 year rolling average modified to take account of the Finningley Quarry production changes within the County) is comparable with an 10 year rolling average house building rate of per local authority (including Nottingham City) of 351 dwellings per annum. The future house building rate is 572 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 63% and will require a similar increase in aggregate production going forward. This requires that the 10 year rolling average be increased by 63% (1.63 x 1.85) to 3.02MT.
10.25 In order to fully understand why Nottinghamshire has failed to increase its annual production of aggregate to that approaching its pre recession rates it is useful to look at the 10 year production rates for the counties making up the East Midlands AWP area. Table 3 shows figures taken from the LAAs for these counties. The East Midlands in 2016 had reached 70% of its pre recession production rate. Three counties were at around pre recession levels with two counties actually producing more. Lincolnshire is now producing 64 % of its pre recession level but Nottinghamshire is only at 40%. It is clear that lack of production in Nottinghamshire is holding back the East Midlands in reaching pre recession production levels. This assessment supports the need to increase the proposed landbank above that which would result from using the rolling 10 year landbank as the basis for future need prediction and this should be 3.02MTPA to give a required landbank for the plan period ( 2017 to 2036) of 57.38MT.
Question 11. What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
11.1 The Draft MLP states that the site specific allocations are based on a consideration of five options which were narrowed down to two criteria on which the decision to allocate was based. Firstly, the need to have a geographical spread of sites across the County and secondly to prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge. BAL considers that this approach is appropriate.
11.2 The draft MLP is supported by A Draft site selection methodology and assessment document, July 2018, (Draft Site Selection Document)) and Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report, July 2018 (Draft SA). The Draft SA contains a detailed numerically based site assessment methodology and a numerical assessment of all the sites put forward. This is surprising because the draft MLP specifically excludes as one of the five options considered allocating sites based on their particular merits. The SA numerical assessment is then taken forward in the Draft Site Selection Document (Section 6) where the geographical spread of sites is stated as the main basis in determining which sites to allocate although this is not based on an objectively assessed need for each area. The ability of material to be transported by river barge is not given priority in the final site selection process.
11.3 BAL consider that it is necessary to maintain a geographical spread of quarries and permitted reserves across the County for two reasons. Firstly is the cost of transporting bulky materials relative to value that in respect of aggregates is low. This means that an appropriate geographic spread is important to ensure that the economy works effectively and additional costs are not unnecessarily incurred. It is also the case that for this reason proposed aggregate reserves should be matched geographically to where those reserves will be used. Secondly is the issue of environmental impact caused by HGV movements associated with aggregate transport.
11.4 Below Table 5 shows the current distribution of permitted reserves compared with spatial requirement for future house building. This is based on the information contained within the October 2017 LAA in respect of permitted reserves and Table 4 at Appendix 3 of this document.
The current distribution is not sustainable in terms of transportation of aggregate and the consequences for air quality and climate change. If extensions to quarries were to be preferred compared to opening up new sites this unsustainable distribution will continue. This is not in accordance with the NPPF guidance in respect of sustainable development.
11.5 In respect of the geographical distribution of aggregate production in the County Table 6 below shows the comparison between future house building in the three aggregate production areas identified by the County and the proposed geographical spread of aggregate production (permitted and proposed) in the draft MLP. There is a significant discrepancy between the two factors with 16% of the house building taking place in the Newark area whilst 46% of the aggregate reserves are planned to be here. In respect of Idle Valley (north Nottinghamshire) 18% of the house building for the County is planned to be here but 36% of the aggregate reserves are proposed in the draft MLP. Meanwhile in the south of the County where 56% of the house building is planned only 18% of the aggregate reserves are proposed in the MLP.
11.6 Taking into account the information in Table 6 it is surprising that the Shelford site (located in the South) was dismissed as a proposed allocation in the draft MLP solely on the basis that to allocate such a large site (6.5MT) in the south would skew the geographical distribution whilst factually Shelford should be allocated to maintain the correct geographical spread of allocated and permitted reserves in the County.
11.7 Even if the limited landbank proposed by the County is accepted (BAL object to the limited landbank, see above) in order to meet the objective set out under policy MP2 of having a geographical spread and meeting the requirement for the plan to be "justified" more aggregate should be allocated in the south and less in the north. This can be achieved within the limited landbank put forward by deleting Botany Bay and Mill Hill (or alternatively one of the proposed Newark sites) as new allocations and substituting Shelford. This has the added benefit of meeting the second MP2 site selection criteria which is "potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" and with which Shelford is the only site complying. Furthermore, the allocation of Shelford would lead to a better commercial balance of supply than is currently, and proposed to be, the case by introducing a new operator into the County. This will ensure that the plan is sound with respect to NPPF para 207 (g).
11.8 The correct geographical distribution of aggregate resources proposed in the draft MLP is important because of the impact of moving mineral within the County and bringing mineral in from surrounding counties if the distribution does not match planned development. The above analysis has used house building as a marker because the level of house building reflects where jobs are to be created and consequently commercial development, local infrastructure and major infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure identified above in relation to the landbank assessment will take place in the south of the County and includes East-Midlands airport expansion, HS2, works to the Nottingham railway line etc. The consequences of not sourcing mineral close to where it is needed are that more miles are travelled by HGVs transporting the mineral. This has a negative impact on air quality and in the long run climate change.
11.9 The air quality and climate consequences have been assessed with respect to HGV movements associated with the proposed Shelford Quarry and those at Newark in the attached (Appendix 4) RPS document. This gives an indication of the problems associated with having a poor geographical distribution of mineral resources in the County.
11.10 In respect of Shelford and the site assessment which has been undertaken BAL have been surprised that a site which was assessed as scoring well under the previous, now withdrawn MLP, has now scored somewhat poorly. Whilst this has not led to officers proposing not to allocate the site which as set out above was solely on the basis of geographical spread of sites the documents underpinning the scoring have been analyzed and series of reports prepared.
Previously the County scored the Shelford site as -6 during the operational phase and 0 in the post operational phase. In the current SA the site is scored -10 in the operational phase and -1 in the post operational phase. Although it should be noted that the summation of the actual SA scores results in a total +2 for the long term.
11.11 BAL has commissioned reports on the various areas of the assessment where it is considered that discrepancies have arisen. It should be noted that since the previous site assessment BAL have undertaken significant work with respect to the site with a view to submitting a planning application. This work was halted when the previous MLP in which Shelford was allocated was withdrawn. However, that work is recent and remains relevant. Some of it has been taken into account in the assessment, in particular that in respect of the historic environment. However, other work, in particular with regard to ecology and hydrology has not been taken into account. Reports in respect of Landscape, hydrology, ecology and transport are attached as appendices.
11.12 The completion of the surveys and other work at Shelford mean that the deliverability of the site can be assured. In the site assessment process the County have determined that Shelford is deliverable. This is an important factor in determining the soundness of the plan.
11.13 Below is a table showing a comparison of the scoring for the Shelford site in the current SA and that as assessed by BAL. Below the table is an explanation in respect of each topic.
Biodiversity. The operational phase score has been downgraded to reflect that the site will be worked wet so there will be no disturbance to the hydrology of the nearby locally designated wildlife sites.
Landscape. This aspect of the assessment has shown the most significant change in scoring for the site changing from -2 to -3 during the operational phase but most surprising changing from -1 to -3 in the long term. The BAL landscape assessment analysis has found that the approach adopted by the County does not allow for an area to be not typical of its character area nor the possibility that positive impacts are possible where a landscape is sensitive to change. In particular the County's landscape analysis fails to understand that the course of the Trent has changed at Shelford, the river now runs through a highly engineered channel and the flood defences along the river have allowed intensive agriculture with large scale arable fields predominating. The mineral extraction provides a significant opportunity to reintroduce the water meadows adjacent to the village and overall a water environment which reflects the historic landscape context. This is a positive aspect of the restoration which is not reflected in the -3 for the long term score.
Flooding. Whilst designing the final restoration scheme for the site initial flood modeling was carried out to see whether flood defences adjacent to the river (these are secondary to those adjacent to Shelford village) could be removed to allow the reconnection of the floodplain. Unfortunately only partial realignment of the flood defence is possible because the flood modeling has shown that under various scenarios the Shelford land and its defences acts to reduce the impact of flooding further downstream. This work has shown that the site can be worked without increasing risk of flooding and in fact during the operational stage there will be an opportunity to improve the defences adjacent to the village. The operational score has been increased to reflect the work carried out and the potential to reduce the risk of flooding during the operations phase.
Climate change. Shelford is the only site where river barging is proposed. This will produce a positive impact from one third of the material being transported in a way that has less impact on climate. The operational score has been amended accordingly.
Efficient use of land. Previously the site assessment viewed larger sites as being more efficient as lots of smaller sites require numerous processing and other plant. This is still the case and the score has been amended accordingly.
Energy efficiency. One third of the material at Shelford will be transported by barge which is a significantly more energy efficient than road transport. The score has been amended accordingly.
Air quality. One third of the material at Shelford will be transported by barge which will result in less pollution than if that volume of material came from a site where only road transport were to be able. The score has been amended accordingly.
Water Quality. It is proposed that there will be no dewatering when the site is worked and there will be no imported material brought into the site consequently the risk to water quality is low and the score has been amended to reflect this.
Human health and quality of life. During the operational phase of the site it will be possible to open up permissive paths and the potential to improve the Shelford village flood defences together with the creation of the water meadows. The operational score has, therefore, been amended.
12 Question 24. What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality?
12.1 As stated above there is a tension between the policy in respect of the effect on Best and Most Versatile Land (BMVL) and the biodiversity led restoration proposals which underpin the Plan. This is highlighted at para. 3.60 where reference is made to the ability to safeguard best and most versatile "soils" rather than land. It would be appropriate if this distinction were also to be made in the policy wording in order to avoid the conflict between the wetland restoration proposals and the preservation of BMVL.
13.What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
12.1 BAL objects to the wording of this policy the first part of which would prevent any mineral development coming forward. It need to include the words "....will not cause unacceptable harm to the character...." Rather than " ...........will not adversely impact on the character .........."

We are writing to confirm that we wish to OBJECT to the above site and key aspects on the Draft MLP as outlined below
We are fully supportive of the fuller submission made by Barton in Fabis Parish Council.

Question 1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan? Question 2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Question 3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

1.1. A sustainable spatial distribution of sites is not one which is simply determined by proximity to market and transport costs. Indeed it can be argued that given that potential developers are probably better informed about the geography of the market and the economics of working a site than NCC, then it can be assumed that all the sites put forward by extraction companies are equally economically viable. In developing a minerals plan the goal of developing a sustainable spatial distribution is therefore dependent upon ensuring that of the sites allocated those selected have the least impact on wider sustainability goals because these cannot be properly evaluated when making decisions at the site level.
1.2. It is also important to note that if sites are allocated simply on the basis of location and the minimisation of transport costs to the detriment of the wider social and environmental values of the site, then this undermines other stated objectives in the Vision, e.g. 'market the efficient use of resources' (S01). Extraction and transport expenditures by the developer should take account of the total cost to the community, including the harm to wider social and environmental assets, of exploiting the resource in specific locations. Unless they do then the goal of increasing levels of aggregate recycling and the use of alternatives from secondary and recycled sources (S01) will not be achieved.
1.3. The interpretation of the concept of sustainable spatial distribution simply in terms of the geography of the market is therefore contrary to the overall sustainability goals that frame the minerals plan, and indeed undermines them. The Draft Mineral Plan is flawed in that it fails to demonstrate what constitutes a sustainable spatial distribution of sites in a meaningful and balanced way. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that it is inconsistent with its strategic objectives for sustainability.
1.4. The lack of consistency between the strategic objectives and their application in developing the plan is especially disappointing given the feedback that NCC received at the Issues and Options stage in which respondents felt that "strategic issues should be broadened to minimise all adverse impacts of development, including on environmental and heritage features such as biodiversity, landscape, archaeology and communities". We therefore object to the plan and require a better alignment between strategic objectives and their application.
1.5. Finally, in relation to the strategic framing of the Draft Plan, we broadly support the strategic policy on minerals provision (Q3), and in particular the emphasis given to the need for "all new proposals, whether allocated or otherwise, will need to be assessed in terms of their impact on local communities and the environment including matters such as landscape, heritage, biodiversity and climate, and what contribution they would make to achieving local and national biodiversity targets." This is clearly consistent with the strategic vision and sustainability objectives that underpin the plan. We are, however, disappointed that the site allocation methodology used in drawing up the plan fails to avoid the allocation of sites with significant negative impact on landscape, heritage, biodiversity and climate, and therefore encourages inappropriate proposals over others that would be more beneficial.
1.6. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the site allocation methodology developed and applied is inconsistent with the strategic objectives of the strategic policy for minerals provision.
Question 4 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodive rsity led restoration?

The concept of biodiversity-led restoration is a sound one, and we are broadly supportive of its inclusion in the Draft Plan as a principle for decision making. However, we are disappointed by the simplistic way in which it is presented in the document, and consider the weakness in the way it is framed as a decision making criterion is inadequate.
1.8. In their review of the NPPF, the British Ecological Society1 state in relation to planning for no net loss to biodiversity that:
Anticipated impacts on biodiversity must be avoided or reduced through the use of alternative development sites or designs; unavoidable impacts must be mitigated and any residual damage must be com pensated for (for example by creating t he same habitat off­ site ). It is desirable for developments to aim for a 'net gain' in biodiversity overall, for example by providing more habitat than needed for mitigation and compensation.
1.9. The policy of ensuring that there is 'no net loss' of biodiversity as a result of development is now well established in the UK, and it is therefore disappointing that there is no reference to it in Section SP3 that relates to Question 4; this is surprising given that it is part of the wording
in DM4, Question 25. Instead the text relating to SP3 merely describes in simple term s what biodiversity-led rest oration entails and the kinds of habitat that might be restored in the context of mineral development. There is no explanation of the constraints associated with biodiversity-led restoration or the issues that need to be considered if proposals for such restoration are to be considered adequate. As a result the application of the principle of biodiversity-led rest oration in the plan is grossly inadequate.
1.10. The views of the British Ecological Society noted above reflect current scientific consensus on restoration - that while it can be successful this is by no means guaranteed. For example, Curran et al. show2 that while active restoration measures can significantly accelerate the increases in species diversity, the inherently large time lags, uncertainty, and risk of restoration failure require offset ratios that far exceed what is currently applied in practice, and that restoration offset policy therefore leads to a net loss of biodiversity. Similarly, Schoukens and Cliquet3 conclude that given the limitations of restoration "a reinforcement of the preventative approach is instrumental in averting a further biodiversity loss within the European Union" (our emphasis).
1.11. The draft strategic policy for biodiversity restoration (SP3) proposed in the Draft Minerals Plan is inadequate because it fails to set restoration objectives in the context of the 'mitigation hierarchy' that is recognised in current planning policy that aims to halt the loss of biodiversity. The hierarchy involves, sequ entially:
* Avoidance: by ensuring impacts on biodiversity must are avoided or reduced through the use of alternative development sites;
* Minimisation: by taking measures to reduce the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts that cannot be completely avoided;
* Rehabilitation/ restoration: by measures taken to improve degraded or removed ecosystems following exposure to impacts that cannot be completely avoided or minimised; and,
* Offset: by measures taken to compensate for any residual, adverse impacts after full
Implementation of the previous three steps of the "mitigation hierarch

In addition developers should demonstrate that the timespan and implementation of the restoration plan is ecologically meaningful and can be sustained over that period. Unless there is serious and demonstrable commitment to restoration at the outset, efforts for biodiversity-led restoration in any scheme are likely to be unsuccessful. The requirements on adequate aftercare contained in DM12 should be reflected more strongly in the text related to SP3, namely that :
Restoration proposals will be subject to a minim um five year period of aftercare. Where proposals or elements of proposals, such as features of biodiversity interest, require a longer period of management the proposal will only be permitted if it includes details of the period of extended aftercare and how this will be achieved. {NMPCD para 5.118, point 9)
And it should be applied in the evaluation of proposals.

1.13. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the policy for biodiversity led restoration is inadequate because it fails to place such measures in the context of a meaningful mitigation hierarchy which ensures that the preventative approach should be prioritised to avert a further, avoidable biodiversity loss across the County. It also fails to develop adequate requirements for aftercare where restoration takes place. As a result its application as a criterion for site allocation is flawed because it does not meaningfully discriminate between proposals in terms of the likely success of biodiversity-led restoration.
Ques tion 6: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

1.14. We are supportive of the statements contained in Policy SPS, and in particular those relating to the need to encourage su stain able forms of transport such as barge and rail. We are however, disappointed that this policy objective has not been applied in the sub sequent allocation of sites, and therefore object to the Draft Plan because there is a mis-alignment bet ween policy and practice. We will develop this argument further in section 9 of this document in relation to the sites in the Nottingham area.
1.15. Focusing specific ally on the wording of SPS we agree that consideration does indeed need to be given to the distances over which minerals need to be transported. However, this is treated in a simplistic way in the policy statement, point 2a). Close proximity to market is an issue, but this statement also needs to be qualifi ed to emphasise a proviso that that this does not result in sites with the greatest social, environmental and landscape impacts being allocated in preference to others with lesser impact. In other words, proximity to market is one factor but not an overriding one. If it is given too much emphasis in site allocation then this would undermine other policy objectives set for the Plan.
1.16. We object to the Plan and the policy related to sustainable transport because we feel that it is not the function of the planning system to manipulate the geography of the market and associated commercial risk, but rather to ensure that development is appropriate and sustainable wider societal needs and requirements. The policy on sustainable transport needs to reflect this. One such requirement, for example, is the use of modes of transport other than road. Another is that the most vulnerable and valuable sites are protected not withstanding their proximity to market.
Question 7: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built environment?

historic and natural

1.17. We are concerned by the poor structure of this Policy statement,and are especially disappointed in that this policy's objectives have not been applied in the subsequent allocation of sites. We therefore object to the Draft Plan because there is a mis-alignment between policy and practice. Again, we will develop this argument further in the section relating to consultation question 11 in relation to the sites in the Nottingham area. The misalignment arises because of the weak and over-generalised nature of the formulation of SPG.
1.18 . Since this policy concerns the need to conserve and protect built, historic and natural assets, it is misleading to refer to the opportunities of restoration once they are damaged or removed (Para 3.46). The policy needs to state that there are circumstances in which minerals development (despite the opportunities for restoration) may not be appropriate because of the initial or ongoing impact and loss it will entail for the built, historic and natural assets. Thus paragraph 3.56 needs to be expanded to include natural and built assets, placed at the head of the section on Policy SPG, and the policy then actually needs to be designed around it.
1.19. In general terms, policy, if it is to be meaningful, needs to shape and guide action or change the way people and organisations do things for the better. We object to the current structure of SP6 because it fails to do this. It is unduly focussed on some of the constraints that need to be considered by developers in making proposals, and the requirements of an environmental impact assessment should one be required. By contrast, it fails to set out how this policy would relate to decision making, and in particular the allocation of sites in a mineral plan, given the requirements of the NPPF.
1.20. For example, in relation to nature conservation the policy should, given the supposed strategic remit of SPG, make reference to paragraph 117 of the NPPF. This states that planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets and that policies should seek to preserve ecological networks as well as restoring and recreating them. Para 117 of the NPPF also requires the identification of suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in a plan. Further considerations also include those relating to the off-site impacts of developments on SSSls and other designated areas.
1.21. In the context of nature conservation it is also essential to include the requirements of the recent update of the NPPF, which in para 175 states that: development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused. unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Wholly exceptional includes infrastructure projects (e.g. nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport & Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.
1.22. While the requirements of the NPPF clearly apply to individual planning applications, they must also apply to the minerals planning process itself which involves assessing sites relative to each other across a range of criteria relating to the built, historic and natural environment.
Unless a site allocation methodology is devised that reflects the requirements of the NPPF then it is likely that the outcome would be the promotion of unsuitable locations. Policy should therefore state how it will operate given the requirements of the NPPF in allocating sites and in identifying those that are unsuitable given the scale and nature of their impacts.
1.23 . We object to the formulation of Policy SP6 because of the lack of transparency in the way it will be applied in the site allocation process. The emphasis on restoration throughout should be reduced and the importance of protection and maintenance of assets stressed.
Question 8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

1.24. We are disappointed with the text of the policy statement on Green Belt {SP7) which fails to fully reflect the important sections of the NPPF on this topic. We therefore object on grounds of its narrowness and the lack of any clear statement about how any policy on the greenbelt would be applied in the minerals planning process.
1.25. . The NPPF and Government (para 79) "attaches great importance to Green Belts" and states (para 87) very clearly that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances: "inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances". Although this element of the NPPF is reflected in the second bullet point of SP7, the policy fails to note that the NPPF states that:
"When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations" (Para 88)
1.26. Policy SP7 is not transparent in that it fails to state how, in the context of minerals planning, the two tests of 'appropriateness' and 'special circumstances' will be applied. In particular, it should be noted that 'special circumstances' in relation to the Green Belt do not include supposed proximity to market or goals of developing a 'spatially sustainable distribution' of minerals sites.
1.27. We therefore object to the policy statement on Green Belt because it lacks any clear indication of how it is to be applied in the minerals planning process.

Question 11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Comments on Plan's approach to the location of future sand and gravel quarries

1.28. The issues and options analysis published in March 2018 evaluated five policy options:
A. Geographical spread across the County
B. Prioritise specific areas
C. Prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge
D. Allocate sites based on their individual merits
Use criteria based policy approach.
1.29. It concluded that "Options A and C scored equally favorably and were more sustainable than the other options". We make objection to this conclusion as the analysis which led to it is flawed. Our reasons are as follows:
* As is acknowledged in the summary on Page SO there is " considerable uncertainty" as to the possible impacts of the options on the sustainability objectives; half of them were not included in the scoring due to lack of detail. As a result of such uncertainty, a precautionary approach would suggest that sustainable outcomes are more likely to be achieved if sites are considered on their individual merits than by the application of general criteria such as geographical spread.
1.30. The flawed logic used in the analysis is evidenced by the commentary against:

* Criterion 2 'Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest': We argue that if sites are considered on their individual merits then this is more likely to result in safeguarding than if they are overridden by criteria such as geographical spread. We therefore argue that option D should be rated as positive.
* Criteria 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14: The same logic as applied to criterion 2 also applies to these objectives. If overall impacts of minerals development are to be minimised then
the negative outcomes can only be minimised by considering sites on their merits. We therefore argue that option D should be scored as positive across all these criteria.
* Criterion 3 'Promote sustainable patt erns of movement and t he use of more sustainable modes of transport': The commentary states that geographical spread is likely to result
in sites being closer to markets thus reducing road haulage distances. Such a conclusion could only be support ed if a detailed geographical analysis of t he market had been done. It has not. The closest to such an analysis is the commentary provided on page 44-45 of the Draft Sit e Selection Methodology and Assessment, which focusses almost exclusively on the local market. However, the 2017 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates Assessment shows that:
o more than half of the sand and gravel extracted in Nottinghamshire is exported (para 3.9);
o that there is considerable import of sand and gravel in the south across the County boundary (para 3.11); and,
o that average annual haulage distances are approximately 35 miles and increasing (para 3.13).
Thus there is considerable uncertainty about the location of the actual market and the geography of patterns of supply and demand. As a result this objective should be scored as uncertain or unknown rather than positive for Option A Criterion 3.
* Criteria 3 and 7: The analysis is biased toward Option A because the issue of minimising road haulage is counted twice. Climate change impacts (Criterion 7) are assumed to be minimised by wider geographical spread of sites because of market proximity. Such an assumption is uncertain as we have shown above. However, the issue of double counting would apply even if a more robust analysis of the geography of the market was available. Reference to road haulage should therefore be removed from criterion 7 and it scored as uncertain because the extent to which sites minimise impact on climate can only be assessed in a case by case basis (i.e. on their merit s using criteria such as th e amount of emissions per ton of aggregate extracted). If transport is to be included then the ability
to provide alternative modes of haulage such as barg e transport should be used here (note that para 3.24 of Appendix 1 to Nott inghamshire Minerals Local Plan Draft Plan Consultation st ates that given that it is not always possible to locate sites close to markets and minimise road transport " the promotion of alternative, more sustainable fo rm s of transport such as barge or rail transport is important " ).
1.31. A precautionary approach to the evaluation of the impacts of the five options on the sustainability objectives would therefore suggest that option D has been inappropriately and negatively scored relative to Option A. The preferred options that meet the County's sustainability goals are clearly C and D, rather than A and C. We therefore object to the draft Minerals Plan on these grounds and suggest that the options selected should be revised to reflect a more accurate and robust analysis of their likely impacts on the County's sustainability appraisal objectives.
1.32. The revision of the findings on the sustainabilit y appra isal to emphasise the contributions of options C and D would ensure that the Draft Plan is better aligned with the results of t he public consultation, as is evidenced by the commentary under 'What you told us at the Issues and Options stage' on page 59 of the Draft Plan Consultation document . The commentary not es that responses were split in relation to the importance of geographical spread and that "Generally, respondents felt that prioritising specific geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, inste ad, each site should be judged on its own merits".
Application of the Site Evaluation Methodology

1.33. We object to the application of the site evaluation methodology on grounds that it is both flawed and applied inconsistently.
1.34. We suggest that geographical spread can be used as a criterion to decide between sites all other things being equal. In other words if sit es had similar environmental and social impacts then those more widely spaced might be selected over a more concentrated distribution . By identifying geographical spread as an over-riding factor, the current draft plan shift s impacts to more potentially damaging sites as is evidenced by the commentary on Mill Hill near Fabis on a e 55 of the Ora Site Selection Methodology and Assessment
document. In thi s commentary the high negative impacts on biodiversity, landscape and the historic environment are acknowledged, but the sit e is selected nonetheless on grounds of geography, even though there are less damaging sites in other parts of the county (e.g. Coddington or Shelford).
* Although Strategic Objective 1 of the Draft Plan states that it should seek to 'secure a spatial patt ern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nott inghamshir e' it should be noted that no analysis of the ways in which different possible spati al configurations of sites might meet this objective are provided. NCC have confirm ed {30/8/ 1 80 that "There is no published dat a relatedto the geographical spread for the part icular allocation of sit es". As a result claims that the Draft Plan can actually deliver this Strategic Objective are unfounded.
* The lack of a detail ed analysis is surprising since it is possible to develop an overview of demandby taking the % of t otal hou sebuilding in each area as a reasonable guide as to w here quarry sites should be located. Although house building accounts only for between
20 to 35% of total aggregate production, where houses are built is where jobs are created with associated commercial buildings and major infrastructure projects and local infrastructure such as roads and schools-thereby equating to a higher percentage. Table 1 provides an estimate of the distribution of house development in Nottinghamshire; it shows that about 56% of the demand is in the Nottingham area.
* Table 2 uses figures provided in the NDMPC for the total requirement in the plan period and the amount available after export; we use 40% and 50% export levels for the analysis. We focus particularly on the est imates of the requirement in the Nottingham area of 10.89mt, and 9.08mt respectively, and the extent to whi h this estimated demand is met by alt ernative site allocations in the Nottingham area.
* Table 3 shows the extent to which the sites allocated in the Nottingham area meet the
estimated demand with 40% and 50% export. With the allocation of East Leake (approved), East Leake (extension) and Mill Hill Barton in Fabis there is a deficit in the proportional supply to the Nottingham area of between 4.8 and 2.99mt.
* However, if the larger Shelford sit e was allocated instead of the smaller Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site then these deficits would be lessened or eliminated(Table 4).
* The analysis suggests that by the inclusion of Shelford, for example, a better geographical spread is achieved than is realised by the current Draft Plan. If as a consequenceBotany Bay were also removed from the plan, the inclusion of Shelford would move 3mt of output from North Nottinghamshir e to South Nottinghamshir e whereit is most needed.
* Consequently, the statement in the 'Sites Assessment Methodology' on the Shelford site that ''The size of this site is such that if it were allocated, provision would be limited in other parts of the County and this would not comply with the objective of maintaining a geographical spread of mineral sites across the County" is manifestly wrong.


1.35. In further considering the criterion to 'Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the
use of more sustainable modes of transport', it is also manifestly wrong to conclude that the proposed site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis is closest to developments likely to take the
output from quarries in the south of the County. We have made an analysis of the current situation as part of our earlier response to the planning application made for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and looked at the status of the locations of potential developments and the quarries which already are or could potentially serve them. The developments and quarries considered are shown in Table 5, which also shows the distance to the nearest quarries and the distance to the proposed sit e at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis. Shelford Wharf has been included as this is a proposed barge terminal close to Trent Lane,Trent Bridge to which some 40% of the material from the Shelford site would be delivered.
For the analysis shown in Table 5 we recognise that it may be financially viable for other quarries to the north of Nottingham and further in to Derbyshire or Leicestershire to supply the projects identified, but we have focused only on the closest in terms of travel distances to simplify the picture.
* Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site is significantly further than alternatives to the major infrastructure projects of the East Midlands Rail Freight Hub and Taton (HS2);
* Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site is not significantly nearer to two of the three major areas in Rushcliffe allocated for the sustainable urban extension (i.e. Gamston and Ed walton). While it is obviously closest for the Clifton West and Clifton Pasture s development the proportion of the output required here is small in relation to proposed total output (ca 1 year's output) and so does not by itself justify development
* Shelford is equally well placed to provide output to these developments as Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and with the development of more sustainable barge transport via Shelford Wharf would be significantly more so.
1.38. It is also important to note that given the impacts associated with the Shelford site are less than that at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and the reallocation of this site in the Minerals Plan
would also reduce the overall social, environmental and landscape in line with SOS, SO6 and SO7.
1.39. However, as we have shown in Section 1, the emphasis given to geographical distribution as an overriding factor in the site selection criteria is, in any case, flawed. The subsequent application of the Options A and C in the site selection process is also inconsistent and as a result we make a further objection to the conclusions drawn. We focus particularly on the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site. Our grounds are as foll ows:
* Despite Option C (Prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge) being identified as a priority in site selection none of the sites selected meet this criteria, although some of those rejected (e.g. Shelford) do. The documentation shows that the operator at Shelford proposes to transport 40% of output via barge but there is no rationale provided for why this site has not therefore been prioritised as the adoption of Option C requir es.
* On the basis of the scoring applied in the site assessment methodology the combined environmental impact of the development of Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis and Botany Bay would be greater both during the operational and long-term phases, than the single site at Shelford (see Table 7, Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report); the development of one site rather than two is likely to result in less overall impact and on these ground thi s strat egy is likely to better address the County's
sustainability goals.
1.40. We therefore object to the application of the site Draft Selection Methodology and its conclusions on grounds of the inconsistency of its outcomes with the stated policy objectives that are supposed to underpin the Draft Plan:
* No evidence is provided to show that the allocation of Shelford rather than Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and Botany Bay, would limit the ability of the plan to ensure a spread of quarries, given the average distance travelled by aggregates is roughly 35 miles and increasing (see para 3.11, 2017 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates
assessment .
* No evidence or argument is provided for the omission of the priority for barge tran sp ort in the selection of sites; and,
* The current application of the site allocation methodology in the Draft Plan result s in greater adverse impact on the environment than otherwise would be the case, despite the requirements of the Draft Plan that future minerals development in Nottinghamshire should meet :
o Strateg1c Objective 1 'Improving the sustainability of minerals development' by making use of sustainable modes of transport
o Strategic Objective 6 'Protecting and enhancing natural assets' by conserving and enhancing Nottinghamshire's natural environment, including its distinctive landscapes, habitats, geology, wildlife species and ecological health of water bodies by avoiding, minimisin g and mitigating potential negative impacts'.
o Strategic Objective 7 'Protecting and enhancing historic assets' by protecting and where appropriate enhancing Nottinghamshire's distinct historic environment and ensuring herit age assets and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.
1.41. . Paragraph 4.19 is therefore incorrect and the conclusion drawn is wrong. Sand and gravel can only be worked where it is found, but it does not follow that geographical spread is the only way to ensure continued supply. Moreover, minimisation of HGV transport is only one criterion that must be used to make site allocations. As we have shown this is inconsistent with the stated policy objectives in the consultation document, because it overlooks the relative impacts on built, natural and heritage assets, and the Green Belt arising at individual sites.
1.42. The Draft Plan is therefore flawed and should be revised accordingly to meet the County's own sustainability objectives. In order to do so:
* sites should be considered on their own merits in order to minimise the likely overall environmental impacts of the Draft Plan;
* the criterion for prioritising barge transport should be applied on grounds of consistency; and,
* geographical spread should only be used to make decisions between sites when all other aspects things are considered equal in order that it does not over-ride consideration of the scale of environmental damage likely to arise by the inappropriate selection of sites due to location - proximity to an unquantified market is not an 'exceptional circumstance' as envisaged by the NPPF.
1.43. Finally, in terms of the specific case of the sites at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and Botany Bay, a transparent rationale needs to be provided as to why these sites are included rather than Shelford, when (a) the likely impacts of the latter are less; (b) the opportunities for prioritising barge transport are greater; and (c) given the average haulage distance for aggregates it is as well placed to serve the needs of the local market as the other two.
Evidence also needs to be provided to support the claim that allocation of Shelford, rather
than the sites at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis and Botany Bay, would limit the ability of the plan to ensure a spread of quarries.
Site Assessment for Mill Hill, Barton In Fabis

1.44. The site assessment made for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis shows it to be one of the most negatively affected should development be permitted. As we have argued there is no coherent statement in the plan as to why this finding should be ignored and the site allocated, when there are other sites where impacts would be less serious. In fact, we would suggest the scale of the impacts for the Mill Hill site have been under-estimated, making the decision even less secure. We therefore object to the assessment made of the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site.
1.45. The mis-representation of the conditions and associated impact s at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis are as follows. We base our response on evidence in the public domain and that generated by the recent planning application for the site. It appears that the Planning Policy Team in assessing the site has failed to take account of the detailed comment s and information already available and provided by consult ees as part of the planning application process which has result ed in objection s and concerns by such bodies as RSPB, Nott s Wildlife Trust, Natural England , CPRE, Ramblers Associati on, Barton in Fabis Parish Council and indeed t he Count y Council's own officers.
Criterion 2: Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest.
* The evidence relating to the biodiversity status of the site and its surroundings point to an assessment that the impact during th e operational phase is very negative (-3) and in the long-term as negative (-2). The dr aft assessment fails to: recognise the importance of the site at the landscape scale, promote the preservation of existing ecological network s and the population s of priority species they support; and recognise or mitigate the significant on-sit e impact on LWS and off-sit e impacts on SSSls. As a result the allocation of the site is not consistent with the objectives of S06 or SPG.
o The claim made by Greenfield Associates in para 8.1.10 of their submission document dated January 2018 that the ecological effects are minor are misleading and highly simplistic.
* Approximately two thirds of the habitat within the proposed sit e consist s of habitat s of Local or Nation al Conservat ion Importance. Nine Local Wildlife Sites will be directly or indirectly impacted upon during the operational period; Borrow s Pit (LWS,) which is within the sit e boundary, has been omitted from the Site Appraisal Matrix. Only partial mitigation by using appropriate buffers will be possible and a number of t he LWS will be destroyed entirely.
* The ancient woodland status of Brandshill Wood and Clift on Wood has not been considered, and the potential impact of changes in hydrology, dust and noise factored into the analysis.
* There are extensive areas of BAP habitat within the site which will be lost, including
neural and semi-improved grassland marshy grassland, scrub, hedgerow, ditch and floodplain grazing marsh. All these habitat s have target s for their conservation and protection. Restoration of the site would not effectively compensate or restore these existing ecologically high value habitats. The long-term impact is to herefore negative rather than slightly negative.
* The SSSls of Att enborough and Holm e Pit are adjacent to the proposed site and both will be adversely affected during the operational phase and long-term. Attenborough is important for a number of bird species will be impacted by noise and permanent loss of feeding areas. The water quality of Holme Pit will be impacted during periods of flooding. Flood patterns and t heir imp act relative to Holme Pit have not been considered in the design and operati on of the proposed site.
* The site also holds a number of species of national or local importance, including bats, harvest mouse, grass snake and common toad. There are many species of red and amber listed birds including noise/ disturbance sensitive species such as barn owl , Cetti's warbler
and long-eared owl. Importantly the site hosts a diverse invertebrate fauna including the endangered beetle, Carabus monilis. All of these species will be subject to severe adverse impacts.
* The restoration plan for this site does not maximise BAP priority habitats for the area and there is no significant biodiversity compensation achieved as a result of proposed restoration measures. Indeed the nature of the "Alternative working proposals/buffer zones to retain/protect LWSs and SSSls" mentioned under mitigation are not specified and it is inappropriate to include them in the assessment. Moreover the time span over which restoration is proposed (5 years, see Para 9.1.4 of Site Proposal by Greenfield Associates, dated January 2018) is inadequate (see NMPCD para 5.118, point 9) ecologically so that the measures are unlikely to be successful.
o The claim made by Greenfield Associates in para 9.1.5 of their submission document dated January 2018 that restoration is likely to be beneficial in the long-term is
therefore unfounded.
Criterion 3: Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the use of more sustainable modes of transport.
* The proposal only includes road haulage and so cannot be considered as offering 'sustainable' modes of transport. At best this criterion should be scored as 0.
Criterion 4: Protect the quality of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings above and below ground.
* The assessment underestimates the impact on historic environment, heritage assets and their settings especially in the long-term by virtue of the resulting negative impact on the historic environment post restoration in respect of the setting and significance of Clifton Hall.
* Barton in Fabis Parish Council recently produced a detailed assessment of the historic cultural links between Clifton Hall (Grade 1 listed) and Barton in Fabis which highlights the importance of the historic environment of the Mill Hill Site to the setting of Clifton Hall. The assessment was sent to the council's heritage officer, Jason Morden, to Tim Allen at Historic England and to Nancy Ashbridge, Landscape Architect at Via East Midlands Ltd. The evidence presented clearly shows that the operation and restoration of the site would have a major impact on the setting of Clifton Hall and its Registered Parks and Gardens. Since these impacts are significant the allocation of the Mill Hill is inconsistent with the third bullet point of Policy SP3 (NMPCD page 39). The long-term impact should be regarded as at least as negative as during the operational phase and both should arguably be set, as a minimum, at -2.


Criterion 5: Protect and enhance the quality and character of our townscape and landscape.

* The assessment given in the Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 is inconsistent with the summary it provided in the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment also published in July 2018. The former gives scores of -3 under both the operational phase and long term (Page 19). However, the latter
erroneously states that "As a result of the above assessment, whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, the se become slight negative impacts in the long term." Clearly the text should state that it is a site of high landscape impact both in the short and long term.
* The fact that the assessment finds that the landscape impact scores as maximum in the operational phases and long-term, and since these scores are amongst the highest attributed to any site in the appraisal matrix, the allocation of this site in the Draft Plan is clearly inconsistent with the Policy SP6.
* The impact of the proposed development on the Green Belt also conflicts with the stated policy in SP6, because the processing plant will be located on a prominent ridgeline on Mill Hill. This will have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in this area. It will therefore conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and should therefore be considered inappropriate development. As th ere are no special circumstances of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm caused to th e Green Belt in this area it is th erefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies EN14 and EN19 of th e Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan.
* In relation to landscape it should also be noted that the mitigation measures summarised in Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 are inconsistent with what is being proposed. For example, it is suggested that there will be retention of ridge and furrow landscape, when in fact the development will remove it entirely. If such retention is proposed then the size of the site and the potential output would be considerably reduced.
Criterion 6: Minimise impact and risk of flooding.

* The assessment is wrong in terms of the long-term impacts of the proposal at Mill Hill. The flood risk assessment madefor the current planning application for sand and gravel extraction at this site shows that the scheme at best is neutral in terms of its impacts on
r-- - - - - - - - - - - .flood risk. There are no measures proposed that would mitigate future flood risk and so at best the score awarded should be '0' and not '+l ' .
* Given that the flood assessment show s that generally the area is likely to experience increasing risk, a requirement of the proposal should be that flood mitigation measures are included in t he design so that these increased future risks are minimised.
* The commentary should include the potential risk of flooding and erosion to the high pressure gas main that bisects the site. There is a risk posed to critical infrastructure associated with this proposal.
Criterion 7: Minimise any possible impacts on, and increase adaptability to, climate change.

* The assessment scores shown in the Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 are inconsistent with the commentary provided, and the scores awarded are misleading.
* The impacts during the operational phase is clearly negative, given the loss of habitat and the carbon stores associated with them, and the use of road haulage. Thus the score of '?' is probably not an accurate representation of the situation. In the long term the assessment states that the impacts could be positive or negative depending on the resilience of the flora and fauna and the details of the restoration. Since this is unknown then the score of +1 is again erroneous.
* We suggest that as a minimum both the operational and long-term phases should be scored as '?', and that the contribution of the proposed site to climate change adaptability is uncertain.
Criterion 8: Protect high quality agricultural land and soil.

* The assessment is in error in terms of the assessment of long term impacts, in that it states that it judges the impact to be positive given "Restoration to high quality agricultural land if that is possible". Such restoration is neither possible nor proposed. If it is proposed then this would reduce the area of BAP and Priority Habitat restoration . At best we suggest the long -term score should be the same as the operational phase, i.e. -
1.

Criterion 12: Protect and improve water quality and promote efficient use of water.

* The assessment scores this criterion as slightly negative (-1) reflecting "dewatering and discharges into watercourses". In fact the evaluation of the pending planning application has revealed serious concerns about the impact of the development (and specifically the location of storage heaps and lagoons) on the quality of water reaching the SSSI of Holme Pit as the result of flooding.
* There is now evidence from the flooding of April 2018 of the way flood waters move across the site, and we can show that flood waters typically overtop the banks of the Trent at Cottagers' Field and ran northwards towards and eventually into Holme Pit, before re-entering the river at below Clifton Hall. These waters cross the centre of the proposed site and especially the area where material will be stockpiled. Such uncontrolled events are likely to impact on the water quality at Holme Pit SSSI though siltation and nutrient input. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the quality of water
, -r_each-in-g Holm- e-Pit will in the long term improve given the uncertainties associated with
the restoration plan.

Criterion 13: Support wider economic development and promote local iob opportunities.

* The assessment only considers the wider economic impact and suggests that some jobs will be created locally. The assessment overlooks the fact that employment may be lost by the impact on agriculture in the area, and the loss of amenity and access on which the local equestrian centres depend. The impact is probably uncertain at best in the short
term.

Criterion 14: Protect and improve human health and quality of life.

* The appraisal correctly assesses the impact of the proposed site on human health and significant (-3) although the commentary justifying the score overlooks a number of serious issues.
* In relation to the Public Rights of Way it should be noted that Bridleway 3 is an extremely well-frequented, strategic route between Barton and Thrumpton in the country and Clifton and Wilford in the city. As the site access road and gravel conveyor will have to be crossed by the footpath this will have major impacts on users. Most significantly it will affect horse riders along the base of Brandshill Grassland by posing a safety risk. This should be flagged up in the commentary on the Site Appraisal Matrix.
* In addition the commentary should note the proximity of the proposed site to Attenborough Nature research and the riverside path along the Trent opposite the extraction site. Only the River Trent separates the site from Attenborough Nature Reserve which many people visit throughout the year; The RSPB publication 'Bigger and Better' estimates that 600,000 people visit Attenborough Nature Reserve annually. Those who walk Attenborough's riverside paths will continually view the adverse effects of the site over the lengthy operational period and will no longer be able to enjoy the peace and tranquillity of the reserve. The planting of willow along the Barton bank of the Trent is immature, unsuccessful in places, and in any case obscures the open views across the flood plain which are of high amenity value.
* In terms of public access to the site it should also be noted that while it is described throughout the documentation in terms of its proximity to Barton in Fabis, it is also located close to Clifton. Inspection of the census data available from the NOMIS website shows that in 2013 the estimated population of people between 16-64 for the wards of Gotham, Clifton South and Clifton North was in excess of 19,000 people. This estimate does not include children or those older than 64. The assessment should therefore reflect the fact that the site represents the nearest countryside {<1k) to a significant number of people, and given that currently policy for promoting health and well-being includes promoting walking and other activities in green, tranquil areas, the development of the site would result in a significant loss of public amenity.
* It should be noted that in their submission document dated January 2018, Greenfield Associates fail to emphasise or take note of the proximity of the proposed site to Clifton
- - - - - - - - - - - a-Aa-i-ts-s ur-relfAe1Rgs.- The-maps--they-p.rov.ide -a re-alsO-OUtda tecLancLdcLno.Lsh.u.,.o,..,w,.._._..f.o..r. __
example, the retirement development at Lark Hill which is well within 400m of the processing plant. Their Para 8.1.2, is therefore inaccurate and misleading.
Summary of Revised Site Assessment Scores for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis
1.46. On the basis of the arguments presented above we suggest that a more realistic assessment of the operational and long-term impacts for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis would be -15 and -8 respectively. The adjusted individual scores are summarised in Table 6 alongside those presented in the draft site appraisal.
1.47. The negative impact of the allocation of the site at Mill Hill is significant, and given the evidence available does not support the summary on page 55 of Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment the which erroneously suggests that "in assessment against sustainability appraisal objectives, the site scores very negatively during the operational
phase and slightly negatively in the long term". The impacts are very negative in both the operational phase and the long term. As a result its allocation is clearly inconsistent with most of the key sustainability objectives and strategic policies that supposedly frame the minerals plan. We therefore object to the site allocation.
Table 6: Revised impact scores for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis.


1.48. We also object to the allocation because there is a lack of transparency in the assessment in terms of how the site is allocated on grounds of viability and location when the impact assessment clearly indicates that there are other sites where impacts are less serious. We
have shown that:
* the evaluation process leading to the inclusion of geographical spread as an
r- - - - - - - - - - - - --AbjeGtive-of--the-p lan-iS-flawed-and-tbat-.on-grounds of suc.tainability_site..s....s.".-'h""'o.._u.l.d... _
be considered on their merits;
* the goal of developing a spatially sustainable plan involves more than consideration of market geography, but also involves promoting a spatial distribution that is consistent with wider goals of sustainability (e.g. conservation and protection of most vulnerable and valuable sites); and,
* the summary provided on Page 55 of the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment is inaccurately drafted and poorly constructed because the statement that allocation is appropriate is unconnected to the evidence that has been assembled in the appraisal matrix which is supposed to underpin any recommendation.
1.49. Minerals planning should be evidence-based. We therefore object to the allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, because the process by which the recommendation arose is flawed, and neither transparent nor credible given even the partial evidence-base identified by in the NMPDC.

Executive Summary

1. Barton in Fabis Parish Council (together with Clifton Village Residents' Association, the Thrumpton Parish Meeting and SAVE) object to the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan Consultation Draft (NMPCD) published in July 2018, and the inclusion of the site (MP2s) at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis within it.
2. Our objection is based on:
a) Flaws in the analysis of issues and options that underpin the Draft Plan, and in particular the identification of geographical spread as a key factor in determining site allocation.
b) The application of a rationale for the allocation of sites which is inconsistent with the strategic objectives that have been used to shape the Draft Plan.
c) The allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis despite the fact that NCC's own analysis shows it to be one of the most damaging sites for sand and gravel of those considered.
d) The allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis is also inconsistent with the objectives of promoting a sustainable spatial distribution of sand and gravel sites within the County, both in terms of its contribution to the overall output of the County and its proximity to market.
e) The allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis is therefore inconsistent with the strategic objectives set out in the plan and strategic policy for sustainable development, and the planning requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework that should underpin it.
3. The process by which the draft plan has been formulated is flawed, and the recommendations in relation to Barton in Fabis are therefore unsound. The revised Draft Minerals Plan does not meet the standard of evidence-based decision making that is to be expected in the minerals planning process.

1. Introduction

1.1. The consultation on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan Consultation Draft (NMPCD) published in July 2018 invites responses to a set 35 questions. These form the framework for this response, made on behalf of the Barton in Fabis Parish Council and SAVE (the wider campaign group formed by members from other areas affected by this proposal including Attenborough, Beeston Rylands, Clifton, Thrumpton and Gotham as well as recreational users from the surrounding area).
1.2. An Open Meeting in Barton Village hall on 5th September 2018 attended by members of the local community including from Barton in Fabis, Clifton, Clifton Village, Thrumpton, Gotham, Attenborough and Beeston Rylands unanimously endorsed the objection to the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site
1.3. Having reviewed the NMPCD and accompanying documents and consulted comprehensively amongst the wider community we wish to register our objection to the Draft Plan and the inclusion of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis within it.
1.4. Our objection is based on:
* Our identification of flaws in the analysis of issues and options that underpins the Draft Plan, and in particular the identification of geographical spread as a key factor in determining site allocation.
* The application of a rationale for the allocation of sites which is inconsistent with the strategic objectives that have been used to shape the Draft Plan, in particular selecting sites on the basis of geographical spread without any evidence base regarding demand and selecting sites which are most damaging in terms of social, environmental and landscape impacts.
* The allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis despite the fact that NCC's own analysis shows it to be one of the most damaging sites for sand and gravel of those considered. Such an allocation is inconsistent with the strategic objectives set out in the plan and strategic policy for sustainable development.

2. The Strategic Framework of the Draft Minerals Plan
Question 1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan? Question 2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Question 3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

2.1. The first three questions posed in the consultation on the NMPCD concern its strategic framing. We are broadly supportive of the broad vision (Q1), and in particular the recognition that mineral workings should contribute towards a greener Nottinghamshire. We particularly welcome the emphasis on seeking to ensure that the "County's diverse environmental habitats are protected, maintained and enhanced..." (our emphasis). We are, however, disappointed that the aim of protecting and maintaining those assets does not carry over into the development of the plan which has allocated sites with the greatest environmental impact simply on grounds of size and location. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that it is inconsistent with its strategic vision.
2.2. We are also broadly supportive of the strategic objectives used to frame the plan (Q2), and in particular the emphasis given to the aim to prioritise the improved use or extension of existing sites before considering new locations and of making use of sustainable modes of transport (SO1). Moreover we are supportive of the strategic objectives dealing with minimising impacts on local communities (SO5), protecting and enhancing natural assets (SO6) and protecting and enhancing historic assets (SO7). We are, however, concerned that these objectives are not applied in the development and application of the site appraisal and allocation methodology. The goal of developing an appropriate and sustainable spatial distribution of sites overrides the goals set out in SOs 5, 6 and 7. Moreover the goal of promoting sustainable modes of transport (SO1) is not applied as a consideration in the site allocation process
2.3. A sustainable spatial distribution of sites is not one which is simply determined by proximity to market and transport costs. Indeed it can be argued that given that potential developers are probably better informed about the geography of the market and the economics of working a site than NCC, then it can be assumed that all the sites put forward by extraction companies are equally economically viable. In developing a minerals plan the goal of developing a sustainable spatial distribution is therefore dependent upon ensuring that of the sites allocated those selected have the least impact on wider sustainability goals because these cannot be properly evaluated when making decisions at the site level.
2.4. It is also important to note that if sites are allocated simply on the basis of location and the minimisation of transport costs to the detriment of the wider social and environmental values of the site, then this undermines other stated objectives in the Vision, e.g. 'market the efficient use of resources' (SO1). Extraction and transport expenditures by the developer should take account of the total cost to the community, including the harm to wider social and environmental assets, of exploiting the resource in specific locations. Unless they do then the goal of increasing levels of aggregate recycling and the use of alternatives from secondary and recycled sources (SO1) will not be achieved.
2.5. The interpretation of the concept of sustainable spatial distribution simply in terms of the geography of the market is therefore contrary to the overall sustainability goals that frame the minerals plan, and indeed undermines them. The Draft Mineral Plan is flawed in that it

fails to demonstrate what constitutes a sustainable spatial distribution of sites in a meaningful and balanced way. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that it is inconsistent with its strategic objectives for sustainability.
2.6. The lack of consistency between the strategic objectives and their application in developing the plan is especially disappointing given the feedback that NCC received at the Issues and Options stage in which respondents felt that "strategic issues should be broadened to minimise all adverse impacts of development, including on environmental and heritage features such as biodiversity, landscape, archaeology and communities". We therefore object to the plan and require a better alignment between strategic objectives and their application.
2.7. Finally, in relation to the strategic framing of the Draft Plan, we broadly support the strategic policy on minerals provision (Q3), and in particular the emphasis given to the need for "all new proposals, whether allocated or otherwise, will need to be assessed in terms of their impact on local communities and the environment including matters such as landscape, heritage, biodiversity and climate, and what contribution they would make to achieving local and national biodiversity targets." This is clearly consistent with the strategic vision and sustainability objectives that underpin the plan. We are, however, disappointed that the site allocation methodology used in drawing up the plan fails to avoid the allocation of sites with significant negative impact on landscape, heritage, biodiversity and climate, and therefore encourages inappropriate proposals over others that would be more beneficial.
2.8. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the site allocation methodology developed and applied is inconsistent with the strategic objectives of the strategic policy for minerals provision.

3. Biodiversity-led restoration
Question 4 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

3.1. The concept of biodiversity-led restoration is a sound one, and we are broadly supportive of its inclusion in the Draft Plan as a principle for decision making. However, we are disappointed by the simplistic way in which it is presented in the document, and consider the weakness in the way it is framed as a decision making criterion is inadequate.
3.2. In their review of the NPPF, the British Ecological Society (https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/planning-for-no-net-loss-of-biodiversity/) state in relation to planning for no net loss to biodiversity that:
Anticipated impacts on biodiversity must be avoided or reduced through the use of alternative development sites or designs; unavoidable impacts must be mitigated and any residual damage must be compensated for (for example by creating the same habitat off- site). It is desirable for developments to aim for a 'net gain' in biodiversity overall, for example by providing more habitat than needed for mitigation and compensation.
3.3. The policy of ensuring that there is 'no net loss' of biodiversity as a result of development is now well established in the UK, and it is therefore disappointing that there is no reference to it in Section SP3 that relates to Question 4; this is surprising given that it is part of the wording in DM4, Question 25. Instead the text relating to SP3 merely describes in simple terms what biodiversity-led restoration entails and the kinds of habitat that might be restored in the context of mineral development. There is no explanation of the constraints associated with biodiversity-led restoration or the issues that need to be considered if proposals for such restoration are to be considered adequate. As a result the application of the principle of biodiversity-led restoration in the plan is grossly inadequate.
3.4. The views of the British Ecological Society noted above reflect current scientific consensus on restoration - that while it can be successful this is by no means guaranteed. For example, Curran et al. show (Curran, M., S. Hellweg, and J. Beck. 2014. Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecological Applications 24:617-632.) that while active restoration measures can significantly accelerate the increases in species diversity, the inherently large time lags, uncertainty, and risk of restoration failure require offset ratios that far exceed what is currently applied in practice, and that restoration offset policy therefore leads to a net loss of biodiversity. Similarly, Schoukens and Cliquet (Schoukens, H. and Cliquet, A., 2016. Biodiversity offsetting and restoration under the European Union Habitats Directive: balancing between no net loss and deathbed conservation?. Ecology and Society, 21(4).) conclude that given the limitations of restoration "a reinforcement of the preventative approach is instrumental in averting a further biodiversity loss within the European Union" (our emphasis).
3.5. The draft strategic policy for biodiversity restoration (SP3) proposed in the Draft Minerals Plan is inadequate because it fails to set restoration objectives in the context of the 'mitigation hierarchy' that is recognised in current planning policy that aims to halt the loss of biodiversity. The hierarchy involves, sequentially:
* Avoidance: by ensuring impacts on biodiversity must are avoided or reduced through the use of alternative development sites;
* Minimisation: by taking measures to reduce the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts that cannot be completely avoided;
* Rehabilitation/restoration: by measures taken to improve degraded or removed ecosystems following exposure to impacts that cannot be completely avoided or minimised; and,
* Offset: by measures taken to compensate for any residual, adverse impacts after full implementation of the previous three steps of the mitigation hierarchy.
3.6. Currently planning policy recognises that although restoration provides an opportunity for the recreation of new habitats, it is not a substitute for conservation of existing resources. The current draft plan is flawed because it needs to make a strong and meaningful link between the statements on biodiversity-led restoration and those in relation to sustainability objective SO6 (i.e. Protecting and Enhancing Natural Assets). Biodiversity-led restoration is not a substitute for conservation. The requirements for adopting an approach based on the mitigation hierarchy that are outlined in DM4 (NMPCD para 5.53) need to be included in the statement of policy SP3 and applied subsequently through the site appraisal and allocation process.
3.7. Notwithstanding the need to revise the policy on Biodiversity-led restoration to reflect its place in the mitigation hierarchy, the material relating to restoration also needs to be strengthened by reference to criteria that will ensure that where biodiversity-led restoration is appropriate, then ecologically appropriate robust schemes are brought forward. This does not merely consist of listing the kinds of habitat that might be expected in any restoration schemes.
3.8. The Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (https://www.cieem.net/data/files/Publications/EcIA_Guidelines_Terrestrial_Freshwater_and_Coastal_Jan_2016.pdf) states, for example, that proposers should demonstrate commitment to the package of mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures which should include: a monitoring scheme to evaluate the success of mitigation measures; remedial measures in the event that mitigation measures and/or compensation measures are unsuccessful or there are unforeseen effects; and an auditing/reporting framework. Clearly, the mitigation and remedial measures should be sufficient to ensure that compensation ratios are sufficient. Moreover there should be a greater presumption towards ensuring net biodiversity gain.
3.9. In addition developers should demonstrate that the timespan and implementation of the restoration plan is ecologically meaningful and can be sustained over that period. Unless there is serious and demonstrable commitment to restoration at the outset, efforts for biodiversity-led restoration in any scheme are likely to be unsuccessful. The requirements on adequate aftercare contained in DM12 should be reflected more strongly in the text related to SP3, namely that:
Restoration proposals will be subject to a minimum five year period of aftercare. Where proposals or elements of proposals, such as features of biodiversity interest, require a longer period of management the proposal will only be permitted if it includes details of the period of extended aftercare and how this will be achieved. (NMPCD para 5.118, point 9)

And it should be applied in the evaluation of proposals.
3.10. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the policy for biodiversity led restoration is inadequate because it fails to place such measures in the context of a meaningful mitigation hierarchy which ensures that the preventative approach should be prioritised to avert a further, avoidable biodiversity loss across the County. It also fails to develop adequate requirements for aftercare where restoration takes place. As a result its application as a criterion for site allocation is flawed because it does not meaningfully discriminate between proposals in terms of the likely success of biodiversity-led restoration.

4. Climate change
Question 5: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

4.1. We are supportive of the inclusion of climate change in the suite of strategic policies that shape the Minerals Plan. However, we feel that the text of SP4 needs to be strengthened in two respects:
* First, that the statement in point b) of Policy SP4 be modified to clarify what 'vulnerability' is referring to. Flood risk is identified as an issue. Communities, natural and historic assets and agricultural soils also need to be highlighted. The need to minimise the vulnerability of existing biodiversity assets to climate change impacts should, for example, be a factor in determining the allocation of sites for development.
* Second, that while the reference to restoration is appropriate in point 1c) of policy SP4, the policy also needs to state that such restoration schemes can contribute to climate change adaptation providing that they compensate for the impacts they have had as a result of the development. The policy also needs to be clear what scale of 'contribution' is appropriate otherwise the requirement is an empty one.
4.2. We are supportive of the recognition that in some circumstances mineral development can provide a number of opportunities to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of future climate change (para 3.34). However, we are concerned that this line of thinking is not carried over into expectations in terms of the issues outlined in point 1a) of Policy SP4. The location, design and operation, and significantly the restoration of sites, should not only seek to avoid climate change impacts, but also deliver a net gain in terms of climate change adaptation.

5. Sustainable Transport
Question 6: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
5.1. We are supportive of the statements contained in Policy SP5, and in particular those relating to the need to encourage sustainable forms of transport such as barge and rail. We are however, disappointed that this policy objective has not been applied in the subsequent allocation of sites, and therefore object to the Draft Plan because there is a mis-alignment between policy and practice. We will develop this argument further in section 9 of this document in relation to the sites in the Nottingham area.
5.2. Focussing specifically on the wording of SP5 we agree that consideration does indeed need to be given to the distances over which minerals need to be transported. However, this is treated in a simplistic way in the policy statement, point 2a). Close proximity to market is an issue, but this statement also needs to be qualified to emphasise a proviso that that this does not result in sites with the greatest social, environmental and landscape impacts being allocated in preference to others with lesser impact. In other words, proximity to market is one factor but not an overriding one. If it is given too much emphasis in site allocation then this would undermine other policy objectives set for the Plan.
5.3. It should also be noted, for example, that the goal of encouraging the sustainable use of resources through the use of recycled and secondary aggregates (SP4) will be undermined by undue emphasis on geographical location in relation to market as a factor in site allocation. While this is important, transport costs should reflect the true cost of exploitation and delivery from sites which in all other respects entail the least damage to natural, historic and social assets. Recycling will not occur unless there is pressure to do so.
5.4. We object to the Plan and the policy related to sustainable transport because we feel that it is not the function of the planning system to manipulate the geography of the market and associated commercial risk, but rather to ensure that development is appropriate and sustainable, given wider societal needs and requirements. The policy on sustainable transport needs to reflect this. One such requirement, for example, is the use of modes of transport other than road. Another is that the most vulnerable and valuable sites are protected notwithstanding their proximity to market.

6. The built, historic and natural environment
Question 7: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
6.1. We are concerned by the poor structure of this Policy statement, and are especially disappointed in that this policy's objectives have not been applied in the subsequent allocation of sites. We therefore object to the Draft Plan because there is a mis-alignment between policy and practice. Again, we will develop this argument further in the section relating to consultation question 11 in relation to the sites in the Nottingham area. The misalignment arises because of the weak and over-generalised nature of the formulation of SP6.
6.2. Since this policy concerns the need to conserve and protect built, historic and natural assets, it is misleading to refer to the opportunities of restoration once they are damaged or removed (Para 3.46). The policy needs to state that there are circumstances in which minerals development (despite the opportunities for restoration) may not be appropriate because of the initial or ongoing impact and loss it will entail for the built, historic and natural assets. Thus paragraph 3.56 needs to be expanded to include natural and built assets, placed at the head of the section on Policy SP6, and the policy then actually needs to be designed around it.
6.3. In general terms, policy, if it is to be meaningful, needs to shape and guide action or change the way people and organisations do things for the better. We object to the current structure of SP6 because it fails to do this. It is unduly focussed on some of the constraints that need to be considered by developers in making proposals, and the requirements of an environmental impact assessment should one be required. By contrast, it fails to set out how this policy would relate to decision making, and in particular the allocation of sites in a mineral plan, given the requirements of the NPPF.
6.4. For example, in relation to nature conservation the policy should, given the supposed strategic remit of SP6, make reference to paragraph 117 of the NPPF. This states that planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and that policies should seek to preserve ecological networks as well as restoring and recreating them. Para 117 of the NPPF also requires the identification of suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in a plan. Further considerations also include those relating to the off-site impacts of developments on SSSIs and other designated areas.
6.5. In the context of nature conservation it is also essential to include the requirements of the recent update of the NPPF, which in para 175 states that: development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Wholly exceptional includes infrastructure projects (e.g. nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport & Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.

6.6. While the requirements of the NPPF clearly apply to individual planning applications, they must also apply to the minerals planning process itself which involves assessing sites relative to each other across a range of criteria relating to the built, historic and natural environment. Unless a site allocation methodology is devised that reflects the requirements of the NPPF then it is likely that the outcome would be the promotion of unsuitable locations. Policy should therefore state how it will operate given the requirements of the NPPF in allocating sites and in identifying those that are unsuitable given the scale and nature of their impacts.
6.7. We object to the formulation of Policy SP6 because of the lack of transparency in the way it will be applied in the site allocation process. The emphasis on restoration throughout should be reduced and the importance of protection and maintenance of assets stressed.

7. Green Belt
Question 8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
7.1. We are disappointed with the text of the policy statement on Green Belt (SP7) which fails to fully reflect the important sections of the NPPF on this topic. We therefore object on grounds of its narrowness and the lack of any clear statement about how any policy on the greenbelt would be applied in the minerals planning process.
7.2. The NPPF and Government (para 79) "attaches great importance to Green Belts" and states (para 87) very clearly that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances: "inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances". Although this element of the NPPF is reflected in the second bullet point of SP7, the policy fails to note that the NPPF states that:
"When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations" (Para 88)
7.3. Policy SP7 is not transparent in that it fails to state how, in the context of minerals planning, the two tests of 'appropriateness' and 'special circumstances' will be applied. In particular, it should be noted that 'special circumstances' in relation to the Green Belt do not include supposed proximity to market or goals of developing a 'spatially sustainable distribution' of minerals sites.
7.4. We therefore object to the policy statement on Green Belt because it lacks any clear indication of how it is to be applied in the minerals planning process.

8. Sand and Gravel Provision (MP2)
Question 11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
Comments on Plan's approach to the location of future sand and gravel quarries
8.1. The issues and options analysis published in March 2018 evaluated five policy options:
A. Geographical spread across the County
B. Prioritise specific areas
C. Prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge
D. Allocate sites based on their individual merits
E. Use criteria based policy approach.
8.2. It concluded that "Options A and C scored equally favourably and were more sustainable than the other options". We make objection to this conclusion as the analysis which led to it is flawed. Our reasons are as follows:
* As is acknowledged in the summary on Page 50 there is "considerable uncertainty" as to the possible impacts of the options on the sustainability objectives; half of them were not included in the scoring due to lack of detail. As a result of such uncertainty, a precautionary approach would suggest that sustainable outcomes are more likely to be achieved if sites are considered on their individual merits than by the application of general criteria such as geographical spread.
8.3. The flawed logic used in the analysis is evidenced by the commentary against:
* Criterion 2 'Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest': We argue that if sites are considered on their individual merits then this is more likely to result in safeguarding than if they are overridden by criteria such as geographical spread. We therefore argue that option D should be rated as positive.
* Criteria 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14: The same logic as applied to criterion 2 also applies to these objectives. If overall impacts of minerals development are to be minimised then the negative outcomes can only be minimised by considering sites on their merits. We therefore argue that option D should be scored as positive across all these criteria.
* Criterion 3 'Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the use of more sustainable modes of transport': The commentary states that geographical spread is likely to result in sites being closer to markets thus reducing road haulage distances. Such a conclusion could only be supported if a detailed geographical analysis of the market had been done. It has not. The closest to such an analysis is the commentary provided on page 44-45 of the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment, which focusses almost exclusively on the local market. However, the 2017 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates Assessment shows that:
* more than half of the sand and gravel extracted in Nottinghamshire is exported (para 3.9);
* that there is considerable import of sand and gravel in the south across the County boundary (para 3.11); and,
* that average annual haulage distances are approximately 35 miles and increasing (para 3.13).
Thus there is considerable uncertainty about the location of the actual market and the geography of patterns of supply and demand. As a result this objective should be scored as uncertain or unknown rather than positive for Option A Criterion 3.
* Criteria 3 and 7: The analysis is biased toward Option A because the issue of minimising road haulage is counted twice. Climate change impacts (Criterion 7) are assumed to be minimised by wider geographical spread of sites because of market proximity. Such an assumption is uncertain as we have shown above. However, the issue of double counting would apply even if a more robust analysis of the geography of the market was available. Reference to road haulage should therefore be removed from criterion 7 and it scored as uncertain because the extent to which sites minimise impact on climate can only be assessed in a case by case basis (i.e. on their merits using criteria such as the amount of emissions per ton of aggregate extracted). If transport is to be included then the ability to provide alternative modes of haulage such as barge transport should be used here (note that para 3.24 of Appendix 1 to Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Draft Plan Consultation states that given that it is not always possible to locate sites close to markets and minimise road transport "the promotion of alternative, more sustainable forms of transport such as barge or rail transport is important").
8.4. A precautionary approach to the evaluation of the impacts of the five options on the sustainability objectives would therefore suggest that option D has been inappropriately and negatively scored relative to Option A. The preferred options that meet the County's sustainability goals are clearly C and D, rather than A and C. We therefore object to the draft Minerals Plan on these grounds and suggest that the options selected should be revised to reflect a more accurate and robust analysis of their likely impacts on the County's sustainability appraisal objectives.
8.5. The revision of the findings on the sustainability appraisal to emphasise the contributions of options C and D would ensure that the Draft Plan is better aligned with the results of the public consultation, as is evidenced by the commentary under 'What you told us at the Issues and Options stage' on page 59 of the Draft Plan Consultation document. The commentary notes that responses were split in relation to the importance of geographical spread and that "Generally, respondents felt that prioritising specific geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, instead, each site should be judged on its own merits".
Application of the Site Evaluation Methodology
8.6. We object to the application of the site evaluation methodology on grounds that it is both flawed and applied inconsistently.
8.7. We suggest that geographical spread can be used as a criterion to decide between sites all other things being equal. In other words if sites had similar environmental and social impacts then those more widely spaced might be selected over a more concentrated distribution. By identifying geographical spread as an over-riding factor, the current draft plan shifts impacts to more potentially damaging sites as is evidenced by the commentary on Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, on page 55 of the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment document. In this commentary the high negative impacts on biodiversity, landscape and the historic environment are acknowledged, but the site is selected nonetheless on grounds of geography, even though there are less damaging sites in other parts of the county (e.g. Coddington or Shelford).
* Although Strategic Objective 1 of the Draft Plan states that it should seek to 'secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire' it should be noted that no analysis of the ways in which different possible spatial configurations of sites might meet this objective are provided. NCC have confirmed (30/8/180 that "There is no published data related to the geographical spread for the particular allocation of sites". As a result claims that the Draft Plan can actually deliver this Strategic Objective are unfounded.
* The lack of a detailed analysis is surprising since it is possible to develop an overview of demand by taking the % of total housebuilding in each area as a reasonable guide as to where quarry sites should be located. Although housebuilding accounts only for between 20 to 35% of total aggregate production, where houses are built is where jobs are created with associated commercial buildings and major infrastructure projects and local infrastructure such as roads and schools - thereby equating to a higher percentage. Table 1 provides an estimate of the distribution of house development in Nottinghamshire; it shows that about 56% of the demand is in the Nottingham area.

Table 1: Distribution of demand by House building figures (Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregate Assessment October 2017 http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/127116/october-2017.pdf) (Annual estimates for Nottinghamshire 4754)
Local Authority Average dwellings PA Area percentage share
North Bassetlaw 435
Area total 435 9.5%
Central Ashfield 452
Mansfield 376
Newark 740
Area Total 1568 34.3%
Nottingham Area Broxtowe 362
Gedling 426
Nottingham 1009
Rushcliffe 774
Area Total 2571 56.2%
(Rushcliffe is included in the Nottingham area because the majority of its housing is allocated to the urban edge of the conurbation)
* Table 2 uses figures provided in the NDMPC for the total requirement in the plan period and the amount available after export; we use 40% and 50% export levels for the analysis. We focus particularly on the estimates of the requirement in the Nottingham area of 10.89mt, and 9.08mt respectively, and the extent to which this estimated demand is met by alternative site allocations in the Nottingham area.
Table 2: Apply percentage demand to export scenarios (mt)
40% export 50% export
Total for Notts 19.38 16.15
North (9.5%) 1.84 1.57
Plus Y&H export totals 12.92 16.15
Total North 14.76 17.72
Newark (34.3%) 6.64 5.53
Nottingham (56.2%) 10.89 9.08
* Table 3 shows the extent to which the sites allocated in the Nottingham area meet the estimated demand with 40% and 50% export. With the allocation of East Leake (approved), East Leake (extension) and Mill Hill Barton in Fabis there is a deficit in the proportional supply to the Nottingham area of between 4.8 and 2.99mt.
Table 3: Match geographical supply to demand - Draft Plan
40% export 50% export
10.89 9.08
East Leake approved 2.34 2.34
East Leake extension 0.75 0.75
Mill Hill Barton in Fabis 3.0 3.0
Total 6.09 6.09
Deficit/Excess -4.8 -2.99

* However, if the larger Shelford site was allocated instead of the smaller Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site then these deficits would be lessened or eliminated (Table 4).

Table 4: Match geographical supply to demand - with Shelford
40% export 50% export
10.89 9.08
East Leake approved 2.34 2.34
East Leake extension 0.75 0.75
Shelford 6.5 6.5
Total 9.59 9.59
Deficit/excess -1.3 +0.48

* The analysis suggests that by the inclusion of Shelford, for example, a better geographical spread is achieved than is realised by the current Draft Plan. If as a consequence Botany Bay were also removed from the plan, the inclusion of Shelford would move 3mt of output from North Nottinghamshire to South Nottinghamshire where it is most needed.
* Consequently, the statement in the 'Sites Assessment Methodology' on the Shelford site that "The size of this site is such that if it were allocated, provision would be limited in other parts of the County and this would not comply with the objective of maintaining a geographical spread of mineral sites across the County" is manifestly wrong.

8.8. In further considering the criterion to 'Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the use of more sustainable modes of transport', it is also manifestly wrong to conclude that the proposed site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis is closest to developments likely to take the output from quarries in the south of the County. We have made an analysis of the current situation as part of our earlier response to the planning application made for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and looked at the status of the locations of potential developments and the quarries which already are or could potentially serve them. The developments and quarries considered are shown in Table 5, which also shows the distance to the nearest quarries and the distance to the proposed site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis. Shelford Wharf has been included as this is a proposed barge terminal close to Trent Lane, Trent Bridge to which some 40% of the material from the Shelford site would be delivered.


Table 5: Distance of sand and gravel sources to major developments in Nottingham area with comparison to distance to Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis
Development Note Nearest quarries Distance from Mill Hill
East Midlands Rail Freight Hub /
Kegworth by-pass Work is under way on these projects and aggregate is already being supplied with contracts already
therefore agreed Lockington 5.86km, Shardlow 9.08km 12.11km
Toton (HS2) Timescales for this project are not yet clear Lockington 8.98km, Shardlow 15.02 15.03km
Gamston No planning application has yet emerged Shelford wharf 6.45km,
Shelford 10.95km
(East Leake: 15.14km) 13.45km
Edwalton Construction already under way and contracts for aggregate supply are in place Shelford wharf 8.49km (East Leake: 15.44, Shelford: 12.9km) 8.79km
Waterfront Timescales unknown Shelford wharf 0.5km
(Shelford 12.6km, Lockington 22.71km) 9.54km
Boots site Planning permission granted Shelford wharf 5.69km
(East Leake 17.55km) 5.96km
Bus Depot Timescales unknown Shelford wharf 8.77km, Lockington 9.07km 9.89km
Clifton Pastures / Clifton West Clifton Pastures timescales unknown. Clifton West yet to have outline planning application approved Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis (East Leake 11.84km, Shelford wharf 8.24km) c0.5km, Clifton Pastures
1km, Clifton West,

Note: a) the distances shown are by road and so the quarries in bold are the nearest location by road distance; b) Information supplied by Greenfield Associates indicating distances from Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, is based on distances 'as the crow flies' and therefore bears no relation to actual distances. This table therefore provides a more meaningful picture of the situation.


8.9. For the analysis shown in Table 5 we recognise that it may be financially viable for other quarries to the north of Nottingham and further in to Derbyshire or Leicestershire to supply the projects identified, but we have focused only on the closest in terms of travel distances to simplify the picture.

8.10. In relation to Table 5 it is important to note that:
* Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site is significantly further than alternatives to the major infrastructure projects of the East Midlands Rail Freight Hub and Toton (HS2);
* Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site is not significantly nearer to two of the three major areas in Rushcliffe allocated for the sustainable urban extension (i.e. Gamston and Edwalton). While it is obviously closest for the Clifton West and Clifton Pasture s development the proportion of the output required here is small in relation to proposed total output (ca 1 year's output) and so does not by itself justify development
* Shelford is equally well placed to provide output to these developments as Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and with the development of more sustainable barge transport via Shelford Wharf would be significantly more so.
8.11. It is also important to note that given the impacts associated with the Shelford site are less than that at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and the reallocation of this site in the Minerals Plan would also reduce the overall social, environmental and landscape in line with SO5, SO6 and SO7.
8.12. However, as we have shown in Section 1, the emphasis given to geographical distribution as an overriding factor in the site selection criteria is, in any case, flawed. The subsequent application of the Options A and C in the site selection process is also inconsistent and as a result we make a further objection to the conclusions drawn. We focus particularly on the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site. Our grounds are as follows:
* Despite Option C (Prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge) being identified as a priority in site selection none of the sites selected meet this criteria, although some of those rejected (e.g. Shelford) do. The documentation shows that the operator at Shelford proposes to transport 40% of output via barge but there is no rationale provided for why this site has not therefore been prioritised as the adoption of Option C requires.
* On the basis of the scoring applied in the site assessment methodology the combined environmental impact of the development of Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis and Botany Bay would be greater both during the operational and long-term phases, than the single site at Shelford (see Table 7, Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report); the development of one site rather than two is likely to result in less overall impact and on these ground this strategy is likely to better address the County's sustainability goals.
8.13. We therefore object to the application of the site Draft Selection Methodology and its conclusions on grounds of the inconsistency of its outcomes with the stated policy objectives that are supposed to underpin the Draft Plan:
* No evidence is provided to show that the allocation of Shelford rather than Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and Botany Bay, would limit the ability of the plan to ensure a spread of quarries, given the average distance travelled by aggregates is roughly 35 miles and increasing (see para 3.11, 2017 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates Assessment).

* No evidence or argument is provided for the omission of the priority for barge transport in the selection of sites; and,
* The current application of the site allocation methodology in the Draft Plan results in greater adverse impact on the environment than otherwise would be the case, despite the requirements of the Draft Plan that future minerals development in Nottinghamshire should meet :
o Strategic Objective 1 'Improving the sustainability of minerals development' by making use of sustainable modes of transport
o Strategic Objective 6 'Protecting and enhancing natural assets' by conserving and enhancing Nottinghamshire's natural environment, including its distinctive landscapes, habitats, geology, wildlife species and ecological health of water bodies by avoiding, minimising and mitigating potential negative impacts'.
o Strategic Objective 7 'Protecting and enhancing historic assets' by protecting and where appropriate enhancing Nottinghamshire's distinct historic environment and ensuring heritage assets and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.
8.14. Paragraph 4.19 is therefore incorrect and the conclusion drawn is wrong. Sand and gravel can only be worked where it is found, but it does not follow that geographical spread is the only way to ensure continued supply. Moreover, minimisation of HGV transport is only one criterion that must be used to make site allocations. As we have shown this is inconsistent with the stated policy objectives in the consultation document, because it overlooks the relative impacts on built, natural and heritage assets, and the Green Belt arising at individual sites.
8.15. The Draft Plan is therefore flawed and should be revised accordingly to meet the County's own sustainability objectives. In order to do so:
* sites should be considered on their own merits in order to minimise the likely overall environmental impacts of the Draft Plan;
* the criterion for prioritising barge transport should be applied on grounds of consistency; and,
* geographical spread should only be used to make decisions between sites when all other aspects things are considered equal in order that it does not over-ride consideration of the scale of environmental damage likely to arise by the inappropriate selection of sites due to location - proximity to an unquantified market is not an 'exceptional circumstance' as envisaged by the NPPF.
8.16. Finally, in terms of the specific case of the sites at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and Botany Bay, a transparent rationale needs to be provided as to why these sites are included rather than Shelford, when (a) the likely impacts of the latter are less; (b) the opportunities for prioritising barge transport are greater; and (c) given the average haulage distance for aggregates it is as well placed to serve the needs of the local market as the other two. Evidence also needs to be provided to support the claim that allocation

of Shelford, rather than the sites at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis and Botany Bay, would limit the ability of the plan to ensure a spread of quarries.
Site Assessment for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis
8.17. The site assessment made for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis shows it to be one of the most negatively affected should development be permitted. As we have argued there is no coherent statement in the plan as to why this finding should be ignored and the site allocated, when there are other sites where impacts would be less serious. In fact, we would suggest the scale of the impacts for the Mill Hill site have been under-estimated, making the decision even less secure. We therefore object to the assessment made of the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site.
8.18. The mis-representation of the conditions and associated impacts at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis are as follows. We base our response on evidence in the public domain and that generated by the recent planning application for the site. It appears that the Planning Policy Team in assessing the site has failed to take account of the detailed comments and information already available and provided by consultees as part of the planning application process which has resulted in objections and concerns by such bodies as RSPB, Notts Wildlife Trust, Natural England, CPRE, Ramblers Association, Barton in Fabis Parish Council and indeed the County Council's own officers.
Criterion 2: Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest.
* The evidence relating to the biodiversity status of the site and its surroundings point to an assessment that the impact during the operational phase is very negative (-3) and in the long-term as negative (-2). The draft assessment fails to: recognise the importance of the site at the landscape scale, promote the preservation of existing ecological networks and the populations of priority species they support; and recognise or mitigate the significant on-site impact on LWS and off-site impacts on SSSIs. As a result the allocation of the site is not consistent with the objectives of SO6 or SP6.
* The claim made by Greenfield Associates in para 8.1.10 of their submission document dated January 2018 that the ecological effects are minor are misleading and highly simplistic.
* Approximately two thirds of the habitat within the proposed site consists of habitats of Local or National Conservation Importance. Nine Local Wildlife Sites will be directly or indirectly impacted upon during the operational period; Borrows Pit (LWS), which is within the site boundary, has been omitted from the Site Appraisal Matrix. Only partial mitigation by using appropriate buffers will be possible and a number of the LWS will be destroyed entirely.
* The ancient woodland status of Brandshill Wood and Clifton Wood has not been considered, and the potential impact of changes in hydrology, dust and noise factored into the analysis.
* There are extensive areas of BAP habitat within the site which will be lost, including neutral and semi-improved grassland, marshy grassland, scrub, hedgerow, ditch and floodplain grazing marsh. All these habitats have targets for their conservation and protection. Restoration of the site would not effectively compensate or restore these existing ecologically high value habitats. The long-term impact is therefore negative rather than slightly negative.
* The SSSIs of Attenborough and Holme Pit are adjacent to the proposed site and both will be adversely affected during the operational phase and long-term. Attenborough is important for a number of bird species will be impacted by noise and permanent loss of feeding areas. The water quality of Holme Pit will be impacted during periods of flooding. Flood patterns and their impact relative to Holme Pit have not been considered in the design and operation of the proposed site.
* The site also holds a number of species of national or local importance, including bats, harvest mouse, grass snake and common toad. There are many species of red and amber listed birds including noise/disturbance sensitive species such as barn owl, Cetti's warbler and long-eared owl. Importantly the site hosts a diverse invertebrate fauna including the endangered beetle, Carabus monilis. All of these species will be subject to severe adverse impacts.
* The restoration plan for this site does not maximise BAP priority habitats for the area and there is no significant biodiversity compensation achieved as a result of proposed restoration measures. Indeed the nature of the "Alternative working proposals/buffer zones to retain/protect LWSs and SSSIs" mentioned under mitigation are not specified and it is inappropriate to include them in the assessment. Moreover the time span over which restoration is proposed (5 years, see Para 9.1.4 of Site Proposal by Greenfield Associates, dated January 2018) is inadequate (see NMPCD para 5.118, point 9) ecologically so that the measures are unlikely to be successful.
* The claim made by Greenfield Associates in para 9.1.5 of their submission document dated January 2018 that restoration is likely to be beneficial in the long-term is therefore unfounded.
Criterion 3: Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the use of more sustainable modes of transport.
* The proposal only includes road haulage and so cannot be considered as offering 'sustainable' modes of transport. At best this criterion should be scored as 0.
Criterion 4: Protect the quality of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings above and below ground.
* The assessment underestimates the impact on historic environment, heritage assets and their settings especially in the long-term by virtue of the resulting negative impact on the historic environment post restoration in respect of the setting and significance of Clifton Hall.
* Barton in Fabis Parish Council recently produced a detailed assessment of the historic cultural links between Clifton Hall (Grade 1 listed) and Barton in Fabis which highlights the importance of the historic environment of the Mill Hill Site to the setting of Clifton Hall. The assessment was sent to the council's heritage officer, Jason Morden, to Tim

Allen at Historic England and to Nancy Ashbridge, Landscape Architect at Via East Midlands Ltd. The evidence presented clearly shows that the operation and restoration of the site would have a major impact on the setting of Clifton Hall and its Registered Parks and Gardens. Since these impacts are significant the allocation of the Mill Hill is inconsistent with the third bullet point of Policy SP3 (NMPCD page 39). The long-term impact should be regarded as at least as negative as during the operational phase and both should arguably be set, as a minimum, at -2.


Criterion 5: Protect and enhance the quality and character of our townscape and landscape.
* The assessment given in the Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 is inconsistent with the summary it provided in the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment also published in July 2018. The former gives scores of -3 under both the operational phase and long term (Page 19). However, the latter erroneously states that "As a result of the above assessment, whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, these become slight negative impacts in the long term." Clearly the text should state that it is a site of high landscape impact both in the short and long term.
* The fact that the assessment finds that the landscape impact scores as maximum in the operational phases and long-term, and since these scores are amongst the highest attributed to any site in the appraisal matrix, the allocation of this site in the Draft Plan is clearly inconsistent with the Policy SP6.
* The impact of the proposed development on the Green Belt also conflicts with the stated policy in SP6, because the processing plant will be located on a prominent ridgeline on Mill Hill. This will have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in this area. It will therefore conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and should therefore be considered inappropriate development. As there are no special circumstances of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt in this area it is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies EN14 and EN19 of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan.
* In relation to landscape it should also be noted that the mitigation measures summarised in Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 are inconsistent with what is being proposed. For example, it is suggested that there will be retention of ridge and furrow landscape, when in fact the development will remove it entirely. If such retention is proposed then the size of the site and the potential output would be considerably reduced.
Criterion 6: Minimise impact and risk of flooding.
* The assessment is wrong in terms of the long-term impacts of the proposal at Mill Hill. The flood risk assessment made for the current planning application for sand and gravel extraction at this site shows that the scheme at best is neutral in terms of its impacts on

flood risk. There are no measures proposed that would mitigate future flood risk and so at best the score awarded should be '0' and not '+1'.
* Given that the flood assessment shows that generally the area is likely to experience increasing risk, a requirement of the proposal should be that flood mitigation measures are included in the design so that these increased future risks are minimised.
* The commentary should include the potential risk of flooding and erosion to the high pressure gas main that bisects the site. There is a risk posed to critical infrastructure associated with this proposal.
Criterion 7: Minimise any possible impacts on, and increase adaptability to, climate change.
* The assessment scores shown in the Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 are inconsistent with the commentary provided, and the scores awarded are misleading.
* The impacts during the operational phase is clearly negative, given the loss of habitat and the carbon stores associated with them, and the use of road haulage. Thus the score of '?' is probably not an accurate representation of the situation. In the long term the assessment states that the impacts could be positive or negative depending on the resilience of the flora and fauna and the details of the restoration. Since this is unknown then the score of +1 is again erroneous.
* We suggest that as a minimum both the operational and long-term phases should be scored as '?', and that the contribution of the proposed site to climate change adaptability is uncertain.
Criterion 8: Protect high quality agricultural land and soil.
* The assessment is in error in terms of the assessment of long term impacts, in that it states that it judges the impact to be positive given "Restoration to high quality agricultural land if that is possible". Such restoration is neither possible nor proposed. If it is proposed then this would reduce the area of BAP and Priority Habitat restoration. At best we suggest the long-term score should be the same as the operational phase,
i.e. -1.
Criterion 12: Protect and improve water quality and promote efficient use of water.
* The assessment scores this criterion as slightly negative (-1) reflecting "dewatering and discharges into watercourses". In fact the evaluation of the pending planning application has revealed serious concerns about the impact of the development (and specifically the location of storage heaps and lagoons) on the quality of water reaching the SSSI of Holme Pit as the result of flooding.
* There is now evidence from the flooding of April 2018 of the way flood waters move across the site, and we can show that flood waters typically overtop the banks of the Trent at Cottagers' Field and ran northwards towards and eventually into Holme Pit, before re-entering the river at below Clifton Hall. These waters cross the centre of the proposed site and especially the area where material will be stockpiled. Such uncontrolled events are likely to impact on the water quality at Holme Pit SSSI though siltation and nutrient input. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the quality of water reaching Home Pit will in the long term improve given the uncertainties associated with the restoration plan.
Criterion 13: Support wider economic development and promote local job opportunities.
* The assessment only considers the wider economic impact and suggests that some jobs will be created locally. The assessment overlooks the fact that employment may be lost by the impact on agriculture in the area, and the loss of amenity and access on which the local equestrian centres depend. The impact is probably uncertain at best in the short term.
Criterion 14: Protect and improve human health and quality of life.
* The appraisal correctly assesses the impact of the proposed site on human health and significant (-3) although the commentary justifying the score overlooks a number of serious issues.
* In relation to the Public Rights of Way it should be noted that Bridleway 3 is an extremely well-frequented, strategic route between Barton and Thrumpton in the country and Clifton and Wilford in the city. As the site access road and gravel conveyor will have to be crossed by the footpath this will have major impacts on users. Most significantly it will affect horse riders along the base of Brandshill Grassland by posing a safety risk. This should be flagged up in the commentary on the Site Appraisal Matrix.
* In addition the commentary should note the proximity of the proposed site to Attenborough Nature research and the riverside path along the Trent opposite the extraction site. Only the River Trent separates the site from Attenborough Nature Reserve which many people visit throughout the year; The RSPB publication 'Bigger and Better' estimates that 600,000 people visit Attenborough Nature Reserve annually. Those who walk Attenborough's riverside paths will continually view the adverse effects of the site over the lengthy operational period and will no longer be able to enjoy the peace and tranquillity of the reserve. The planting of willow along the Barton bank of the Trent is immature, unsuccessful in places, and in any case obscures the open views across the flood plain which are of high amenity value.
* In terms of public access to the site it should also be noted that while it is described throughout the documentation in terms of its proximity to Barton in Fabis, it is also located close to Clifton. Inspection of the census data available from the NOMIS website shows that in 2013 the estimated population of people between 16-64 for the wards of Gotham, Clifton South and Clifton North was in excess of 19,000 people. This estimate does not include children or those older than 64. The assessment should therefore reflect the fact that the site represents the nearest countryside (<1k) to a significant number of people, and given that currently policy for promoting health and well-being includes promoting walking and other activities in green, tranquil areas, the development of the site would result in a significant loss of public amenity.
* It should be noted that in their submission document dated January 2018, Greenfield Associates fail to emphasise or take note of the proximity of the proposed site to Clifton and its surroundings. The maps they provide are also outdated and do not show, for example, the retirement development at Lark Hill which is well within 400m of the processing plant. Their Para 8.1.2, is therefore inaccurate and misleading.
Summary of Revised Site Assessment Scores for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis
8.19. On the basis of the arguments presented above we suggest that a more realistic assessment of the operational and long-term impacts for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis would be -15 and -8 respectively. The adjusted individual scores are summarised in Table 6 alongside those presented in the draft site appraisal.
8.20. The negative impact of the allocation of the site at Mill Hill is significant, and given the evidence available does not support the summary on page 55 of Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment the which erroneously suggests that "in assessment against sustainability appraisal objectives, the site scores very negatively during the operational phase and slightly negatively in the long term". The impacts are very negative in both the operational phase and the long term. As a result its allocation is clearly inconsistent with most of the key sustainability objectives and strategic policies that supposedly frame the minerals plan. We therefore object to the site allocation.
Table 6: Revised impact scores for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis.

Sustainability Appraisal Objectives Effect as scored in Draft Minerals Plan Suggested Ajustment to Scores Inconsistencies with the Stretegic Objectives and Policies that frame Minerals Plan
Operational
period Long -term Operational
period Long -term
1. Ensure that adequate provision is made to meet local and national mineral demand. 2 0 2 0
2. Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard
features of geological interest. -2 -1 -2 -2 Allocation is inconsistent with
SO6, SP1, SP3, SP4 and SP6
3. Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the use of more sustainable modes of transport. 1 0 0 0 Allocation is inconsistent with SO1, SO3, SO5, SP5
4. Protect the quality of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings above and below ground. -2 I -2 -2 Allocation is incosistent with SO6, SP6
5. Protect and enhance the quality and character of our townscape and landscape. -3 -3 -3 -3 Allocation is incosistent with SO7, SP6
6. Minimise impact and risk of flooding. -3 I -3 ? Allication is inconsistent with
SO6, SP4
7. Minimise any possible impacts on, and increase adaptability
to, climate change. ? I ? ? Allication is inconsistent with
SO3, SP4
8. Protect high quality agricultural land and soil.
-1 1 -1 -1
9. Promote more efficient use of land and resources. 0 ? 0 ?
10. Promote energy efficiency and maximise renewable
energy opportunities from new or existing development. ? ? ? ?
11. Protect and improve local air quality. -3 0 -3 0 Allication is inconsistent with SO6
12. Protect and improve water quality and promote efficient
use of water. -1 0 -2 ? Allication is inconsistent with
SO1, SP1
13. Support wider economic development and promote local
job opportunities. 2 0 2 0
14. Protect and improve human health and quality of life. -3 ? -3 ? Allication is inconsistent with
SO5, SP6
Total -13 -3 -15 -8


8.21. We also object to the allocation because there is a lack of transparency in the assessment in terms of how the site is allocated on grounds of viability and location when the impact assessment clearly indicates that there are other sites where impacts are less serious. We have shown that:

* the evaluation process leading to the inclusion of geographical spread as an objective of the plan is flawed and that on grounds of sustainability sites should be considered on their merits;
* the goal of developing a spatially sustainable plan involves more than consideration of market geography, but also involves promoting a spatial distribution that is consistent with wider goals of sustainability (e.g. conservation and protection of most vulnerable and valuable sites); and,
* the summary provided on Page 55 of the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment is inaccurately drafted and poorly constructed because the statement that allocation is appropriate is unconnected to the evidence that has been assembled in the appraisal matrix which is supposed to underpin any recommendation.
8.22. Minerals planning should be evidence-based. We therefore object to the allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, because the process by which the recommendation arose is flawed, and neither transparent nor credible given even the partial evidence-base identified by in the NMPDC.


(please note that footnotes have been placed in text, in brackets, in the above transcript)

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