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

In order to be thorough and consistent, it may be worth referring to the possible potential Special Protection Area (ppSPA) in paragraph 3.47. This is mentioned elsewhere in the document, including paragraph 2.13 and paragraph 5.47. Beyond this, NSDC is supportive.

Coddington Parish Council supports this policy.

We welcome that the policy addresses amenity. However we consider there needs to be a requirement to consider alternatives with lesser impacts and thus should be made explicit.
All proposals must demonstrate that the need cannot be met in the foreseeable future from alternative sites that are viable, suitable and available to serve the same market requirement, the development of which having lesser residual impacts.

This is supported

The policy appears to afford the same weight to international, national, regional and local nature conservation sites and priority habitats and species yet paragraph 171 of the NPPF states that plans should actually distinguish between their hierarchy. Suggest these are separated out in the policy in recognition of the NPPF.

CEMEX also query the status of the comment about comprising 'planned future infrastructure' (paragraph 3.66) as this is vague and can potentially result in the sterilisation of mineral reserves.

There is no clear definition of "no unacceptable adverse impacts". Is there any impact that can be acceptable?
The demonstration of "an overriding need for a development" is very difficult to prove. If a site is allocated in the plan, does this constitute an overriding need. What is meant by overriding
Who decides what is "adequate mitigation". A reference to the restoration plan may be useful in this policy as mineral development is temporary use of the land.

I reiterate a point I made to section 1. The risk of flooding to the area surrounding Burton Joyce railway station is already high; exacerbated by recent heavy rainfalls. With climate change clearly identified as a threat please ensure that such risks cannot be increased

No Comment

Plans to erode agricultural land of any grade are unacceptable. This simply cannot be permitted to happen with a huge and growing population in need of feeding. Sites of specific interest must be given much greater priority. The commitment must be to preserve these absolutely and at all costs, not just "where possible".

Pat 3.71
2015 is described as though it were a year in the future. This is definitely wrong. Proper goals must be offered.
Water safety in aquifers must be protected. Given the irreparable nature of damage done to water by fracking processes applications for these processes to occur here should be particularly carefully treated

Attenborough Nature Reserve is a haven for so many beautiful birds and we are lucky to have the diversity on our doorstep. You want to build a gravel works adjacent to it!!! Really?? Does this not totally conflict with your own policy?? Do you think the river in between is sufficient distance from causing upheaval to the wildlife?? I sincerely question the credibility of your thought process!!

CAGE strongly supports SP6 but would like to note:

SP6 paragraph 3.46 - The impact on the natural and built environment is not always temporary as stated - heritage, habitat and landscape can be destroyed, and land surface is also frequently permanently lost. This is admitted in 3.51 and CAGE welcomes this candour. CAGE strongly supports the recording and publishing of heritage knowledge gains. Unfortunately, for concealed heritage assets, we only learn that which the present economy and methods allow, the opportunity for more advanced future investigation is lost forever.

CAGE strongly supports SP6 but would like to note:

Paragraphs 3.57, 3.58 Landscape: CAGE feels that the cumulative impact in the Trent and Idle valley landscape is worrying. NCC should publish figures on land surface in the county already lost to water (including when and where). The Trent Washlands are not the only landscape particularly under pressure from minerals development - the Village Farmlands of the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands are equally under threat, and from both Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.

CAGE strongly supports SP6 but would like to note:

We were shocked to learn that one ancient parish in Mid-Lincs has already lost 50% of its land surface to quarrying and has had a further 15% allocated for extraction by Lincolnshire CC. Developers and wildlife partners should be required to state what percentage area is likely to be recovered as land surface and the percentage of non-water habitat to help the public evaluate the benefits.

Agricultural Land: CAGE welcomes the candour of 3.60 in relation to the impact of mineral extraction on agricultural land. In many cases, however, restoration of a significant proportion of land surface - to create agricultural land or land-based habitat - is largely dependent upon sourcing inert fill, affordably close to the development. The permanent removal of best and most versatile soils to another site is just blatant asset-stripping of the neighbourhood and its landscape, and an excuse for a low- grade restoration.

Paragraph 3.68 Community amenity. Potential impacts include loss of tranquillity, heritage assets, sense of place and increased levels and redistributed patterns of traffic.

Paragraph 3.73 CAGE would welcome clarification on the classes of minerals sites which would not require an Environmental Impact Assessment - it feels that all minerals sites must provide one.

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.

These representations are made on behalf of FCC Environment Limited ("FCC") in response to the consultation exercise undertaken by Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) in relation to the Draft Minerals Local Plan. These representations specifically make reference to the Carlton Forest site (site ref: MP3c) located in Worksop, which is owned freehold by FCC.
The table below sets out each part of the Draft Minerals Local Plan we wish to comment on and our response (either to support, object or comment), in the order each part appears within the Draft Minerals Local Plan.
Strategic Objective 4 (SO4) seeks to protect the County's potential mineral resources of economic importance from development.
FCC supports the protection of important mineral resources, and therefore supports this objective. However, mineral extraction will not be taking place at Carlton Forest during the plan period as all reserves have been exhausted, and
therefore the site should not be considered a potential mineral resource requiring safeguarding.
This plan illustrates that the Carlton Forest site is a permitted Sherwood Sandstone site. Condition 2 of planning permission 1/16/01785/CDM relating to sand extraction at Carlton Forest states: "All sand extraction, processing and
export of mineral from the site shall cease on or before 25th August 2018". The decision notice is attached to these representations for ease of reference.
It should also be noted that all economically important mineral resources would have already been extracted prior to the adoption of the plan. The quarry operator lease expires this year and they will be vacating site.
Mineral extraction will not be permitted at Carlton Forest during the plan period, and therefore the site should not be shown within the Key Diagram as a permitted site.
Policy SP8 safeguards economically important mineral resources. For the reason set out in the response to SO4, FCC supports this policy. However, mineral extraction will not be permitted at Carlton Forest during the plan period,
and therefore the site should not be considered a potential mineral resource requiring safeguarding.
Para 3.47 This policy identifies that the County contains over 1,400 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) which are protected by its designation. The majority of the Carlton Forest site forms part of the Carlton Forest Sandpit LWS, which is designated for its botanical interest.
Following a Phase 2 Botanical Survey (to support a recent planning application on the site - ref: 18/01093/OUT) it was considered that none of the on-site area met the criteria to be designated as an LWS and the majority of the off-site
area of the LWS was not considered to meet the criteria with the exception of a small, linear strip approximately 220m west of the site boundary due to a lack of indicator species.
It is therefore considered that the extent of the LWS should be reduced to cover only the small, linear strip approximately 220m west of the site boundary.
Para 3.81 This paragraph states that only the most meaningful and
best current estimate of viable resources have been
safeguarded for future assessment and possible use. This is incorrect.
The Carlton Forest site (ref: MP3c) has been safeguarded within the draft plan for its Sherwood Sandstone resource, despite not having any important resources remaining with the plan period or an extant planning consent for mineral
extraction. Carlton Forest should be removed from the safeguarded sites.
Plan 4 illustrates that the Carlton Forest site is safeguarded for its Sherwood Sandstone resource. As stated within the response to 'Plan 3 Key Diagram', all economically important mineral resources on the site would have already
been extracted prior to the adoption of the plan. Therefore, the site should not be safeguarded and should be removed from Plan 4.
Policy MP1 This policy states that 7.03 million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone will be provided over the plan period. This policy includes 0.07 million tonnes reserve at Carlton Forest (ref:MP3c), which will not be available when the plan is adopted.
The policy is relying on a site that will not deliver the resource that is stated. Therefore, the Carlton Forest site should be removed from the anticipated Sherwood Sandstone provision.
In reality, just 6.96 million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone will be provided over the plan period. This policy therefore needs to be updated.
Policy MP3 states that remaining reserves at Carlton Forest (ref: MP3c) are at 0.07 million tonnes. As noted above, this is incorrect.
There will be no economically important reserves left on the site when the plan is adopted, thus any reference to the site in this policy should be removed.
Para 4.45 This text reiterates the points made in Policy MP3. For the reason set out within the response to Policies MP1 and MP3, references to 7.03 million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone reserves in Nottinghamshire should be amended to state
6.96 million tonnes.
Para 4.46This text states that as of December 2016, there were 4 permitted Sherwood Sandstone sites with estimated reserves of 3.85 million tonnes. This information is now out of date.
As noted within the response to 'Plan 3 Key Diagram', mineral extraction at Carlton Forest will not be permitted during the plan period. Additionally, all economically important mineral resources would have already been
extracted prior to the adoption of the plan. Therefore, the site would have 0 reserves.
It is therefore suggested that this paragraph is updated to include up to date reserves information.
Para 4.47 This paragraph states that an additional 3.3 million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone would need to be provided up to 2036 to meet demand on top of remaining reserves at permitted sites.
However, considering that the permitted reserves data includes a site (Carlton Forest - ref: MP3c) which will have no remaining reserves within the plan period, this paragraph needs to be updated to state that atleast an additional 4
million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone would be required to meet demand.
Para 4.53 This paragraph relates to the Carlton Forest site (ref: MP3c), and states that there are still 54,000 tonnes of permitted reserves remaining. For the reasons set out previously within this table, this paragraph should be removed.
Policy DM12 This policy relates to restoration, after use and aftercare of minerals sites. Paragraph 7 of this policy states that the after-use of a site will be required to have regard to the wider context of the site and its surroundings. Paragraph 8 states that where opportunities arise, after use proposals should provide benefits to the local and wider community, which may include employment.
Policy DM12 promotes the after-use of mineral sites for appropriate and beneficial uses including employment. FCC recently submitted a planning application (which is currently under determination) for the erection of circa 3,125m2 of B1
(Business), B2 (General Industry) and/or B8 (Storage and Distribution) floorspace at Carlton Forest Quarry (ref:18/01093/OUT), which is located adjacent to a number of other existing commercial / industrial units. FCC therefore
supports Policy DM12.
Policy DM13 supports the recovery of minerals as an incidental element of another development proposal.
This policy promotes sustainable development by helping to conserve mineral resources that might otherwise be lost, therefore FCC supports Policy DM13.
Appendix 2 Sherwood Sandstone delivery schedule: The Sherwood Sandstone Delivery Schedule contained within Appendix 2 of the Draft Minerals Plan references the Carlton Forest site (ref: MP3c). For the reasons set out
previously within this table, reference to Carlton Forest should be removed from this schedule.
Appendix 4- policies map: The Policies Map contained within Appendix 4 identifies the Carlton Forest site (ref: MP3c) as a permitted and safeguarded Sherwood Sandstone site. For the reasons set out previously within this table, Carlton Forest should not be identified within the Policies Map.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Consultation on the Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Thank you for giving the Environment Agency the opportunity to respond to the Nottinghamshire Draft Minerals Local Plan. We welcome the opportunity to review this Minerals Draft Local Plan and provide detailed comments where appropriate.
After review of the Draft Local Plan the Environment Agency has the following comments to make:

Vision

We welcome the overall aims of the Vision of the Plan.

We recommend that the visions aim that 'Mineral development will be designed, located and operated to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are mitigated', and not minimised. This would allow a vision that ensures no environmental harm and allows climate change impacts to be mitigated.

We welcome the Visions aims to ensure a reduction in flood risk, and to maintain or enhance the water quality within Nottinghamshire. We would welcome the inclusion of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) within this section of the vision to ensure that the vision requires all development to have regard for WFD.

We welcome the Plan's vision to work towards 'a greener Nottinghamshire' and the protection and enhancements that the Plan strives for.

Strategic Objectives

SO3: Addressing Climate Change
The Environment Agency welcomes this objective, particularly in respect of the aim to reduce existing and future flood risk through good Quarry design and operation. We would also highlight that restoration offers the opportunity to reduce flood risk to the site and to others and should be a key consideration for all restorations proposals.

SO6: Protecting and enhancing natural assets
We welcome this strategic objective to conserve and enhance the natural environment of Nottinghamshire. We would ask that the word 'minimising' is removed to ensure that all development has no negative impact on the natural environment, especially biodiversity. We welcome the requirement to achieve the targets set out in the Water Framework Directive.
Policies

Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
The Environment Agency welcomes point 2 of this policy requiring all proposals for mineral development to prioritise the avoidance of adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development through the use of appropriate mitigation and compensation conditions. This policy along with others for flood risk, water quality, biodiversity etc should be used to ensure suitable protection to the environment.

Policy SP3 - Biodiversity - Led Restoration
We welcome the inclusion of this strategic policy to ensure schemes that maximise biodiversity gains will be supported. We support the requirement to demonstrate how restoration will contribute towards WFD objectives by using restoration to improve and enhance the biodiversity of the environment.

We welcome the detailed inclusion of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) from section 3.29, in particular making reference to the Humber River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). The RBMP provides a framework for protecting and enhancing the benefits provided by the water environment. The Local Plan should ensure that all development follows the requirement of the RBMP and WFD to ensure suitable protection and enhancement of the water environment.

Policy SP4 - Climate Change
We welcome the overall aims of this policy. We would ask that part 1 of this policy is reworded to state that ' All minerals developments, including site preparation, operational practices and restoration proposals should reduce, or as a minimum, cause no increases in their impact on the causes of climate change for the life time of the development'

In respect of part b) we would suggest including that impacts should be 'reduced where possible, or as a minimum, fully mitigated' as well as stating that all development does not increase flood risk to the site and to others.

We welcome the inclusion of part c) to ensure that restorations schemes will address future climate change issues such as flood alleviation. We would highlight that water resources and water quality could be added in to this sentence to highlight these important issues.

Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
We welcome this policy and the initial requirement to ensure that all mineral development will be required to deliver a high standard of environmental protection and enhancement. We note that flood risk, water quality, water provision (Resources) and Biodiversity are included within this overall policy. The Environment Agency would highlight that these areas of impact will need to be protected and enhanced, and in the case of biodiversity, meet the requirements for WFD, and any development impacting flood risk will need to show that there is no increase in flood risk to the site, or to others.

Section 3.7.1 on page 44 refers to the Water Framework Directive and the date of 2015 for water bodies achieving good chemical and qualitative status. This date should be amended to 2027, which is the final deadline for meeting the objectives of the directive.
Section 4: Mineral Provision Policies

A number of the policies within this section for all mineral development types state that any proposals outside of the permitted sites will be supported where a need can be demonstrated. The Environment Agency would ask that additional wording is incorporated to ensure that these additional sites do not have a negative impact on the natural environment and are in line with the requirements of other policies to protect and enhance biodiversity, not increase flood risk to the site and others, and meet the targets of WFD.

General Water Resources Information

Abstractions for the purpose of dewatering mines, quarries or engineering excavations are currently exempt from the need for an abstraction licence under the Water Resources Act 1991. However, changes under the Water Act 2003 and draft regulations that have been laid in parliament before coming into force from 1st January 2018 will bring these abstractions into regulation under the abstraction licensing system. Once the regulations become live on 1st January 2018 a licence will be required for the majority of dewatering activities. There will be a two year application window until December 2019 for applications for existing dewatering operations to be made, to be followed by a three year determination period (from January 2020) for the Agency to process them. If the dewatering operations will take commence after 1st January 2018 the applicant would need to consult us at the earliest opportunity to discuss licensing requirements.

Any new licence would be dependent on whether resources are available as set out in the ALS (Abstraction Licensing Strategy). The applicant should be aware that the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer located within Nottinghamshire County Boundary is closed to further consumptive abstraction licences. In the Sherwood Sandstone the new extensions at Bestwood and Scrooby Top North could be impacted if there is any requirement for additional water from the underlying aquifer. Similarly, sand and gravel allocations for extensions and new sites will also have to have regard for any restrictions within the waterbodies the sites would be abstracting from. Any new consumptive abstractions may not be available depending on the location of the proposed allocation. This closureto the application of consumptive abstraction licences is to protect the ground and surface water environment. A copy of the relevant Abstraction Licensing Strategies the Lower Trent and Erewash and Idle and Torne can be found on Gov.uk following the links below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291403/LIT_3309_b5e317.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291404/LIT_5355_d453a5.pdf

Policy MP6 - Brick Clay Provision
This area of land is to the north of the Dorket Head Landfill. The current landfill permit does not include this area of land. If the restoration of the site required the importation of waste to restore the site then an application to the Environment Agency would be required for either a new permit or a variation to the current landfill permit. We would like to highlight that given the history of odour complaints relating to the now closed Dorket Head landfill site, we would oppose any proposals to restore this area with putrescible or other odorous wastes.
Section 5 - Development Management Policies

Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
At the Issues and Options stage we highlighted whether this policy should be split into two to split up flood risk and water resources. We also note that water quality is highlighted within the general introduction but then is not specifically mentioned within the title of the policy or the main document. At the time of restoration, proposals that help to enhance water quality should be supported.

We would suggest that the Policy title is amended to read as 'Flood Risk, Water Quality and Water Resources'. We would suggest that part 1 of this policy should be amended to say 'Water Resources and Water Quality'. We would suggest an additional bullet point highlighting water quality such as 'Water quality, both surface and groundwater, should be managed to ensure no deterioration, and where possible enhancement at the time of restoration, to help meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive'.

Flood Risk
The Environment Agency welcomes the inclusion of a flood risk policy. We would ask that in paragraph 2 an additional bullet point is added stating 'development does not increase flood risk to the site, or to others'.

Paragraph 3 we suggest the following wording is added 'risks can be fully mitigated, and does not increase flood risk to the site or others'

We welcome paragraph 4's overall aim to encourage restoration proposals to incorporate flood reduction measures. We would recommend that the wording is strengthened by using 'shall' instead of 'should'. 'Where the opportunity exists, restoration proposals shall incorporate flood risk reduction measures e.g. flood plain storage.....'. We also suggest that the importance of working with natural processes should also be included.

Section 5.25 on page 103 mentions the Environment Agency's Groundwater Protection Principles and Practice. This document has been superseded by the policies and position statements contained in the Environment Agency's Approach to Groundwater Protection which updates the previous document. Please refer to this newer document in the Minerals Plan. The Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy is now known as an Abstraction Licencing Strategy. This wording should be amended accordingly.

In section 5.29 the Local Plan mentions that Mineral Extractions can 'temporarily reduce storage capacity and therefore increase the risk of flooding elsewhere'. The Environment Agency would query this assertion and argue that all development, no matter how temporary in nature should not increase flood risk to elsewhere and therefore other people not directly involved in the proposed development. We therefore ask that this section is either removed or reworded to ensure that any development, temporary or not is designed to ensure there is no increase in flood risk to others.

We welcome the recognition in section 5.32 that multiple environmental benefit can be delivered through the restoration of minerals working, including flood risk management, water quality and WFD improvements. Restoration offers the opportunity to reduce flood risk, both to the site, and to others and should be a key requirement of the future restoration plans.
We acknowledge that SUDs has been included in this policy but suggest that opportunities for encouraging biodiversity gains, and water quality improvements within SUDs features should also be included.

Policy DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality
We welcome the inclusion of soil quality within this policy to ensure that measures will be taken to ensure soil quality is protected. As mentioned within the justification, proper management of soils during restoration will ensure that there is reduced suspended solids entering local water courses, and in turn help towards the targets of the Water Framework Directive.

Policy DM4: Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Biodiversity should be protected and enhanced throughout any mineral development. Development should be designed in such a way to ensure that any impacted areas of biodiversity are protected and enhanced.

We welcome point 3 of the policy that states that 'biodiversity....will be enhanced' as part of the restoration process. Restoration offers the opportunities to improve the biodiversity of the environment such as river restoration and floodplain wetland creation. Where relevant, the opportunities to provide these biodiversity enhancements should be looked into.

Policy DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare
The Environment Agency welcomes the requirement that this policy should be considered alongside Policy SP3: Biodiversity - Led Restoration. We welcome point 1 of this policy that supports development where the restoration will enable long-term enhancement of the environment. Restoration offers the opportunity to provide multiple environmental benefits, such as enhancement of biodiversity, and where applicable, reducing flood risk through detailed and considered designs of the restoration scheme to provide reduced flood risk to the site and to others.

Regarding point 3, where full restoration plans are not available, we would expect to see detailed information on flood risk to show how flood risk could be reduced, as restoration offers the opportunity to reduce flood risk to the site and to others.

Regarding point 4 and the importation of waste, we would highlight that all waste importation would need to be assessed to understand whether a permit is required. We note that section 5.128 & 5.129 highlights the requirement to gain advice from the Environment Agency which we welcome.

Regarding point 8, we welcome this point highlighting that after-use proposals should provide benefits to the local and wider community from an environmental perspective in areas such as flood plain storage and reconnection.

Restoration also offers the opportunity to further improve and enhance others areas of the environment such as water quality and biodiversity such as river restoration for all watercourses, and floodplain wetland creation. The enhancements of these areas should also be a key requirement for future restoration proposals

DM14: Irrigation Lagoons
We welcome section 5.143 highlighting that abstraction in some parts of the county is closed.

DM17: Mineral Exploration
Section 5.166 on page 145 makes reference to deep boreholes specifically those associated with the exploration for coal, oil and gas. The construction of such boreholes would also require various permits from the Environment Agency usually to control the handling of any waste produced from drilling a deep borehole and to protect groundwater.

Appendix 3: Site Allocation Development Briefs

Bawtry
The site is situated in an area where any new consumptive abstraction may not be available.

Scrooby North
As previously mentioned, the site is situated in an area where any new consumptive abstraction may not be available.

Scrooby Thompson
As previously mentioned, the site is situated in an area where any new consumptive abstraction may not be available.

Botany Bay
As previously mentioned, the site is situated in an area where any new consumptive abstraction may not be available.

Langford Lowfields South and West
This site is situated in the flood zones. We welcome the inclusion of the 45m exclusion zones from the flood defences and River Trent. A flood risk assessment should also make use of available data from the Environment Agency.

We welcome the quarry restoration proposals to provide an increase in wetland habitats. As well as biodiversity improvements, restoration offers the opportunity to reduce flood risk to the site and to others and we ask that this is also mentioned within this section to ensure flood risk betterment.

As previously mentioned earlier in our response, restoration also offers the opportunity to improve the water environment and water quality. This should also be an aim of any future restoration.

Langford Lowfields North
This site is situated in the flood zones. We welcome the inclusion of the 45m exclusion zones from the flood defences and River Trent. A flood risk assessment should also make use of available data from the Environment Agency.

We welcome the quarry restoration proposals to provide an increase in wetland habitats. As well as biodiversity improvements, restoration offers the opportunity to reduce flood risk to the site and to others and we ask that this is also mentioned within this section to ensure flood risk betterment.

As previously mentioned earlier in our response, restoration also offers the opportunity to improve the water environment and water quality. This should also be an aim of any future restoration.

Mill Hill
This site is situated in the flood zones. We welcome the inclusion of the 45m exclusion zones from the flood defences and River Trent. A flood risk assessment should also make use of available data from the Environment Agency.

We again welcome the requirement for restoration to be biodiversity lead. Again to opportunity to enhance the biodiversity of the area is a welcome aim of the site specific policy. We also welcome that other multi - functional benefits such as flood storage should be explored. As previously mentioned, restoration offers the opportunity reduce flood risk to the site and others, and therefore should be another key requirement of any future restoration at this site.

As previously mentioned earlier in our response, restoration also offers the opportunity to improve the water environment and water quality. We welcome any investigation that will help to ensure water quality at the designated Holme Pit SSSI, which is something that has been highlighted by Natural England.

East Leake
If any additional abstraction is required from the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer then it is unlikely any water will be available for abstraction.

Bestwood 2 East and Bestwood 2 North
As previously mentioned, the site is situated in an area where any new consumptive abstraction may not be available.

Scrooby Top North
As previously mentioned, the site is situated in an area where any new consumptive abstraction may not be available.

Woodborough Lane
As previously mentoned in our comments for policy MP6 - Brick Clay Provision, this area of land is to the north of the Dorket Head Landfill. The current landfill permit does not include this area of land. If the restoration of the site required the importation of waste to restore the site then an application to the Environment Agency would be required for either a new permit or a variation to the current landfill permit. We would like to highlight that given the history of odour complaints relating to the now closed Dorket Head landfill site, we would oppose any proposals to restore this area with putrescible or other odorous wastes.

Bantycock
Part of the site is situated in the flood zone. A FRA may be required if development is proposed within this area.

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for your consultation on the above document dated 26 July 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan
Natural England has reviewed the Draft Plan and has the following comments:
Supporting Documents
We advise that a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Minerals plan should be undertaken and submitted as a supporting document with the plan.
Paragraph 2.13 - We suggest that the abbreviation used for the Sherwood possible potential Special Protection Area (ppSPA) should be clarified. A potential Special Protection (pSPA) is a particular stage of the designation. The Sherwood area has not yet reached this stage yet and is still under consideration which is why it is known as a possible potential SPA.
Draft Vision
Natural England generally welcomes the vision. We are pleased to note that climate change has now been included within the 2nd paragraph, however we suggest that the wording should be clarified to explain that the impact on climate change should be mitigated not minimised to ensure that no environmental harm is allowed.
Strategic Objectives
SO6: Protecting & Enhancing Natural Assets - We are pleased to note that many of our comments made at the issues and options stage of the plan have been included within this objective, particularly those concerning net gain and delivery of biodiversity at a landscape scale.
SO8: Protecting Agricultural Soils - We are pleased to note that protection of Best & Most Versatile (BMV) land has been included in this objective.
SP2 Minerals Provision
Natural England welcomes paragraph 2 of the policy wording and paragraph 3.11 of the explanatory text which establishes that development must demonstrate avoidance of environmental impacts.
SP3 Biodiversity led restoration
Natural England strongly supports this policy which has incorporated many of our previous comments. We welcome paragraphs 3.12 & 3.14 which emphasise the importance of considering restoration at the outset of a proposal and as integral to the management of the whole extraction process and phasing.
We welcome the reference to the National Character Areas, Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets and the Water Framework Directive.
The paragraphs setting out the justification for the policy are also supported particularly the emphasis on the potential for mineral extraction to deliver high-quality habitat and creating valuable places for both wildlife and people and contributing to the delivery of landscape-scale conservation.
We welcome the guidance on Priority Habitats from paragraph 3.23 which help to ensure that the right restoration solutions are followed in appropriate locations.
We are also pleased to note that at paragraph 3.28 that agricultural restoration can still be "biodiversity led".
Net Gain - We suggest that your authority may want to consider including an additional paragraph on net gain in light of its emphasis in the 25 year Environment Plan "Green Futures" and the revised NPPF. Biodiversity net gain is a demonstrable gain in biodiversity assets as a result of a development project that may or may not cause biodiversity loss, but where the final output is an
overall net gain. Net gain outcomes can be achieved both on and/or off the development site and
should be embedded into the development process at the earliest stages. Metrics exist for calculating the amount of biodiversity required to achieve net gain. The most commonly used are variants of the Defra metric which calculates the biodiversity units required to achieve biodiversity net gain. The advantage of using a recognised metric to deliver net gain is that it provides a clear,
transparent and evidence-based approach to assessing a project's biodiversity impacts that can assist with "de-risking" a development through the planning process and contribute to wider placemaking.
Natural England would be happy to advise further on this approach and there is further information available on the Defra website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technicalpaper-
the-metric-for-the-biodiversity-offsetting-pilot-in-england
SP4 - Climate Change
Natural England welcomes this policy
SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
Natural England welcomes this policy which will ensure that mineral development will need to deliver a high standard of environmental protection and enhancement.
Nature Conservation - We agree with provisions regarding nature conservation within paragraphs
3.47 to 3.49 however reference should be made to the SA and HRA to ensure a full assessment of environmental effects has been carried out, including an assessment of alternatives, to ensure the most sustainable and least environmental sensitive sites are included in the Plan.
Geology - we welcome paragraph 3.50 regarding the protection of regionally important geological sites, however it should also refer to geological SSSI's which are of national importance.
Landscape -we welcome the reference to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment.
Agricultural land and soil - this policy should safeguard the long term capability of best and most versatile agricultural land.
Minerals Provision Policies
Natural England cannot comment on minerals provision specifically but only on its implications for the natural environment. We would wish to ensure that cross reference is made to the SA and HRA to ensure a full assessment of environmental effects has been carried out, including an assessment
of alternatives, to ensure the most sustainable and least environmental sensitive sites are included in the Plan.
(We have made comments on the individual development briefs below.)
Development Management Policies
DM2 Water resources and Flood Risk - Natural England would like to see this policy give greater emphasis to the protection of habitats from water related impacts resulting from mineral development and seek enhancement, especially for designated sites. We acknowledge that paragraph 5.32 of the explanatory text does mention water quality and environmental benefits but this should also appear in the policy wording.
We welcome paragraph 4 of the policy wording which includes flood plain reconnection and the further explanation in paragraph 5.32. However we suggest that the importance of working with natural processes should also be included. We have discussed this issue with the Environment Agency.
We acknowledge that SUDs has been included in the policy but suggest that opportunities for encouraging biodiversity gains within SUDs features should also be included.
DM3 Agricultural land and soil quality - Natural England advises that minerals plans should recognise that extraction can have an irreversible adverse (cumulative) impact on BMV land.
Avoiding the use of high grade land is the priority as mitigation is rarely possible, even with the best restoration standards. We acknowledge that this has been included within the policy wording.
Some sand and gravel sites cannot always avoid BMV soil as the quality of soils tends to be higher over sand/gravel sites. In such cases restoration of the highest standard should be the norm with the focus on maintaining healthy soils.
We support paragraph 5.39 that explains that biodiversity led-restoration schemes can be carried out on BMV land as long as the land and soil is maintained in a state capable of supporting agriculture in future, should the need arise.
We welcome paragraph 5.40 which makes provision for biodiversity gains within agricultural restoration.
DM4 Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity - Natural England supports this policy. In paragraph 1 of the policy wording reference should be made to the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) which should accompany the plan. Reference to the "mitigation hierarchy" in paragraph 2 of the policy is welcome. We also support the enhancement measures set
out in paragraph 3.
We acknowledge the requirement at 5.46 for a HRA at planning application stage but one would also be required for the local plan itself.
We welcome the reference to the Sherwood ppSPA at paragraph 5.47 and the risk based approach.
DM5 landscape character - Natural England welcomes this policy and the reference to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment. We suggest that reference should also be made to the National Character Areas (NCAs)
DM7 Public access - Natural England supports this policy.
DM12 Restoration and aftercare - Natural England plan would wish to ensure the high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites, including for agriculture, geodiversity, biodiversity, native woodland, the historic environment and recreation. We consider that the policy takes a strategic approach for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity
(linked to national and local targets) and green infrastructure.
We would however suggest that biodiversity net gain should be emphasised within the policy wording. We welcome reference to the Trent Valley "Bigger and Better" scheme which fits in with Council's biodiversity-led restoration approach.
Appendix 3 - Site Allocation Development briefs
MP2l - Bawtry Road west
We are pleased to note that potential indirect hydrological links to the Hatfield Moor SAC have been highlighted and we advise that a HRA would be required.
MP2n - Scrooby North
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2m - Scrooby Thompson Land
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2r - Botany Bay
Chesterfield Canal SSSI is adjacent to this site and it should be ensured that there is no adverse impact on interest features of this designation particularly in terms of water quality.
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2p - Langford Lowfields North
We agree with the landscape scale approach to restoration across this site and the other sites in the Collingham and Besthorpe area and that this should be co-ordinated through the master-planning process to maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity gain.
MP2o - Langford Lowfields South and west
We agree with the landscape scale approach to restoration across this site and the other sites in the Collingham and Besthorpe area and that this should be co-ordinated through the master-planning process to maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity gain.
MP2s - Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis
Natural England welcomes the intention for a biodiversity led restoration for this site and acknowledge that the restoration targets are appropriate. The restoration offers the potential to deliver significant biodiversity enhancement through the creation of traditional floodplain wetland and grassland habitats. However we would need to be certain that all concerns about the effects on the current habitats have been considered first. There is a cluster of Local Wildlife Sites which form
an important ecological corridor beside the River Trent which would be directly affected by the proposed site. These Local Wildlife Sites make an important contribution to the wider ecological network which is a specific aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We would wish to ensure that biodiversity net gain could be achieved at each stage of the proposal.
We note that Holme Pit SSSI has been mentioned but we advise that the brief should stress the importance of carrying out a full hydrological investigation to ensure that there will be no impact on the water quality of the SSSI. This designated site is vulnerable to hydrological changes, impacts to water quality, siltation problems and potentially non-native species issues within the SSSI which
could result from mineral extraction. It is important that existing water flows in the Barton and other feeder drains are maintained to supply Holme Pit SSSI to avoid damage to the swamp and marginal plant communities.
We would expect the water quality from any quarrying development and restoration to be of a much higher standard than the current levels.
The brief also does not mention Attenborough Gravel Pits SSSI which may be affected by the allocation. The site's interest features are water dependant and may be sensitive to changes in water flow and quality. Therefore hydrological and hydrogeological assessments should be undertaken. Appropriate bird surveys should also be undertaken and an assessment made of the potential effects to birds associated with the SSSI.
MP2q - East Leake North
No comment
MP3e - Bestwood 2 East & MP3f - Bestwood 2 North
We welcome the biodiversity led approach and consider that the biodiversity targets are appropriate.
This site is in close proximity to areas which are important for nightjars and woodlarks that have been identified for inclusion in the Sherwood Forest ppSPA we therefore suggest that this should be considered within the brief for the site.
MP3g - Scrooby Top North
Natural England would need to understand how the current exposure of the Scrooby Top Quarry
geological SSSI would be protected during extension of this site.
MP6c Woodborough Lane
The site is likely to include Best & Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
MP7c - Bantycock quarry south
No comment
MP7c - Bantycock quarry south
No comment
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for your consultation on the above document dated 26 July 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan
Natural England has reviewed the Draft Plan and has the following comments:
Supporting Documents
We advise that a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Minerals plan should be undertaken and submitted as a supporting document with the plan.
Paragraph 2.13 - We suggest that the abbreviation used for the Sherwood possible potential Special Protection Area (ppSPA) should be clarified. A potential Special Protection (pSPA) is a particular stage of the designation. The Sherwood area has not yet reached this stage yet and is still under consideration which is why it is known as a possible potential SPA.
Draft Vision
Natural England generally welcomes the vision. We are pleased to note that climate change has now been included within the 2nd paragraph, however we suggest that the wording should be clarified to explain that the impact on climate change should be mitigated not minimised to ensure that no environmental harm is allowed.
Strategic Objectives
SO6: Protecting & Enhancing Natural Assets - We are pleased to note that many of our comments made at the issues and options stage of the plan have been included within this objective, particularly those concerning net gain and delivery of biodiversity at a landscape scale.
SO8: Protecting Agricultural Soils - We are pleased to note that protection of Best & Most Versatile (BMV) land has been included in this objective.
SP2 Minerals Provision
Natural England welcomes paragraph 2 of the policy wording and paragraph 3.11 of the explanatory text which establishes that development must demonstrate avoidance of environmental impacts.
SP3 Biodiversity led restoration
Natural England strongly supports this policy which has incorporated many of our previous comments. We welcome paragraphs 3.12 & 3.14 which emphasise the importance of considering restoration at the outset of a proposal and as integral to the management of the whole extraction process and phasing.
We welcome the reference to the National Character Areas, Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets and the Water Framework Directive.
The paragraphs setting out the justification for the policy are also supported particularly the emphasis on the potential for mineral extraction to deliver high-quality habitat and creating valuable places for both wildlife and people and contributing to the delivery of landscape-scale conservation.
We welcome the guidance on Priority Habitats from paragraph 3.23 which help to ensure that the right restoration solutions are followed in appropriate locations.
We are also pleased to note that at paragraph 3.28 that agricultural restoration can still be "biodiversity led".
Net Gain - We suggest that your authority may want to consider including an additional paragraph on net gain in light of its emphasis in the 25 year Environment Plan "Green Futures" and the revised NPPF. Biodiversity net gain is a demonstrable gain in biodiversity assets as a result of a development project that may or may not cause biodiversity loss, but where the final output is an
overall net gain. Net gain outcomes can be achieved both on and/or off the development site and
should be embedded into the development process at the earliest stages. Metrics exist for calculating the amount of biodiversity required to achieve net gain. The most commonly used are variants of the Defra metric which calculates the biodiversity units required to achieve biodiversity net gain. The advantage of using a recognised metric to deliver net gain is that it provides a clear,
transparent and evidence-based approach to assessing a project's biodiversity impacts that can assist with "de-risking" a development through the planning process and contribute to wider placemaking.
Natural England would be happy to advise further on this approach and there is further information available on the Defra website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technicalpaper-
the-metric-for-the-biodiversity-offsetting-pilot-in-england
SP4 - Climate Change
Natural England welcomes this policy
SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
Natural England welcomes this policy which will ensure that mineral development will need to deliver a high standard of environmental protection and enhancement.
Nature Conservation - We agree with provisions regarding nature conservation within paragraphs
3.47 to 3.49 however reference should be made to the SA and HRA to ensure a full assessment of environmental effects has been carried out, including an assessment of alternatives, to ensure the most sustainable and least environmental sensitive sites are included in the Plan.
Geology - we welcome paragraph 3.50 regarding the protection of regionally important geological sites, however it should also refer to geological SSSI's which are of national importance.
Landscape -we welcome the reference to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment.
Agricultural land and soil - this policy should safeguard the long term capability of best and most versatile agricultural land.
Minerals Provision Policies
Natural England cannot comment on minerals provision specifically but only on its implications for the natural environment. We would wish to ensure that cross reference is made to the SA and HRA to ensure a full assessment of environmental effects has been carried out, including an assessment
of alternatives, to ensure the most sustainable and least environmental sensitive sites are included in the Plan.
(We have made comments on the individual development briefs below.)
Development Management Policies
DM2 Water resources and Flood Risk - Natural England would like to see this policy give greater emphasis to the protection of habitats from water related impacts resulting from mineral development and seek enhancement, especially for designated sites. We acknowledge that paragraph 5.32 of the explanatory text does mention water quality and environmental benefits but this should also appear in the policy wording.
We welcome paragraph 4 of the policy wording which includes flood plain reconnection and the further explanation in paragraph 5.32. However we suggest that the importance of working with natural processes should also be included. We have discussed this issue with the Environment Agency.
We acknowledge that SUDs has been included in the policy but suggest that opportunities for encouraging biodiversity gains within SUDs features should also be included.
DM3 Agricultural land and soil quality - Natural England advises that minerals plans should recognise that extraction can have an irreversible adverse (cumulative) impact on BMV land.
Avoiding the use of high grade land is the priority as mitigation is rarely possible, even with the best restoration standards. We acknowledge that this has been included within the policy wording.
Some sand and gravel sites cannot always avoid BMV soil as the quality of soils tends to be higher over sand/gravel sites. In such cases restoration of the highest standard should be the norm with the focus on maintaining healthy soils.
We support paragraph 5.39 that explains that biodiversity led-restoration schemes can be carried out on BMV land as long as the land and soil is maintained in a state capable of supporting agriculture in future, should the need arise.
We welcome paragraph 5.40 which makes provision for biodiversity gains within agricultural restoration.
DM4 Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity - Natural England supports this policy. In paragraph 1 of the policy wording reference should be made to the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) which should accompany the plan. Reference to the "mitigation hierarchy" in paragraph 2 of the policy is welcome. We also support the enhancement measures set
out in paragraph 3.
We acknowledge the requirement at 5.46 for a HRA at planning application stage but one would also be required for the local plan itself.
We welcome the reference to the Sherwood ppSPA at paragraph 5.47 and the risk based approach.
DM5 landscape character - Natural England welcomes this policy and the reference to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment. We suggest that reference should also be made to the National Character Areas (NCAs)
DM7 Public access - Natural England supports this policy.
DM12 Restoration and aftercare - Natural England plan would wish to ensure the high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites, including for agriculture, geodiversity, biodiversity, native woodland, the historic environment and recreation. We consider that the policy takes a strategic approach for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity
(linked to national and local targets) and green infrastructure.
We would however suggest that biodiversity net gain should be emphasised within the policy wording. We welcome reference to the Trent Valley "Bigger and Better" scheme which fits in with Council's biodiversity-led restoration approach.
Appendix 3 - Site Allocation Development briefs
MP2l - Bawtry Road west
We are pleased to note that potential indirect hydrological links to the Hatfield Moor SAC have been highlighted and we advise that a HRA would be required.
MP2n - Scrooby North
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2m - Scrooby Thompson Land
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2r - Botany Bay
Chesterfield Canal SSSI is adjacent to this site and it should be ensured that there is no adverse impact on interest features of this designation particularly in terms of water quality.
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2p - Langford Lowfields North
We agree with the landscape scale approach to restoration across this site and the other sites in the Collingham and Besthorpe area and that this should be co-ordinated through the master-planning process to maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity gain.
MP2o - Langford Lowfields South and west
We agree with the landscape scale approach to restoration across this site and the other sites in the Collingham and Besthorpe area and that this should be co-ordinated through the master-planning process to maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity gain.
MP2s - Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis
Natural England welcomes the intention for a biodiversity led restoration for this site and acknowledge that the restoration targets are appropriate. The restoration offers the potential to deliver significant biodiversity enhancement through the creation of traditional floodplain wetland and grassland habitats. However we would need to be certain that all concerns about the effects on the current habitats have been considered first. There is a cluster of Local Wildlife Sites which form
an important ecological corridor beside the River Trent which would be directly affected by the proposed site. These Local Wildlife Sites make an important contribution to the wider ecological network which is a specific aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We would wish to ensure that biodiversity net gain could be achieved at each stage of the proposal.
We note that Holme Pit SSSI has been mentioned but we advise that the brief should stress the importance of carrying out a full hydrological investigation to ensure that there will be no impact on the water quality of the SSSI. This designated site is vulnerable to hydrological changes, impacts to water quality, siltation problems and potentially non-native species issues within the SSSI which
could result from mineral extraction. It is important that existing water flows in the Barton and other feeder drains are maintained to supply Holme Pit SSSI to avoid damage to the swamp and marginal plant communities.
We would expect the water quality from any quarrying development and restoration to be of a much higher standard than the current levels.
The brief also does not mention Attenborough Gravel Pits SSSI which may be affected by the allocation. The site's interest features are water dependant and may be sensitive to changes in water flow and quality. Therefore hydrological and hydrogeological assessments should be undertaken. Appropriate bird surveys should also be undertaken and an assessment made of the potential effects to birds associated with the SSSI.
MP2q - East Leake North
No comment
MP3e - Bestwood 2 East & MP3f - Bestwood 2 North
We welcome the biodiversity led approach and consider that the biodiversity targets are appropriate.
This site is in close proximity to areas which are important for nightjars and woodlarks that have been identified for inclusion in the Sherwood Forest ppSPA we therefore suggest that this should be considered within the brief for the site.
MP3g - Scrooby Top North
Natural England would need to understand how the current exposure of the Scrooby Top Quarry
geological SSSI would be protected during extension of this site.
MP6c Woodborough Lane
The site is likely to include Best & Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
MP7c - Bantycock quarry south
No comment
MP7c - Bantycock quarry south
No comment
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Draft Plan Consultation Representations by Mick George Ltd (MGL)

Suggested additions are in bold; suggested deletions are in strikethrough.

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

1. MGL wishes to comment on the Strategic Object ives . Whilst the aspiration in SO1 to increase the levels of aggregate recycling and the use of alternatives from secondary and recycled sources appears laudable it does not seem to be informed by the conclusions of your own LAA (Oct 2017). This remarks that national estimates suggest that around 80-90% of construction and demolition waste is re-used or recycled (in fact, in 2014 only 4% of mineral wastes in England which comprises 'typically construction materials such as bricks, stone and road planings that are converted into usable aggregates' 1 were landfilled). Moreover, the LAA observes that availability of PFA and FBA is likely to disappear by 2025 . The scope for material changes to the quantities of primary minerals needed for development in these circumstances is very low and the Plan should be realistic about what it can achieve. Since so much has been made by some consultees about the substitution of primary aggregates by secondary aggregates, we think the Council should be more explicit in its conclusion that despite the encouragement to be given to the latter, it will not make much difference to the demand levels of the former.

2. There is also an objective to prioritise the improved use or extension of existing sites before considering new locations. MGL believes this is misguided and contrary to national policy. NPPF contains no such provision, whilst PPG advises that there are cons as well as pros when considering extensions and new sites, and that therefore all proposals should be treated on their merits. Each operator should be allowed to make a case for new working without being hamstrung by a policy bias.
3. MGL therefore opposes both statements in 501 and suggests a rewording,

"Ensure more efficient exploitation and use of primary mineral resources by minimising waste, increasin(j .lev-els of atjtjretjate recyc!in(j ane the use of alternatives from seconeary ane recyc!ee sources. Secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire. Prioritise the imf}rovee use or <Eftension of e-xistin(j sites before consieerin(j new .locations. Make use of sustainable modes of transport.11

4. MGL has identified that there is a conflict between 506 & 508. Good planning is about the reconciling of competing objectives for land, and a good plan will highlight this and propose appropriate policies to manage the conflict. There is a clear potential for conflict between the competing objectives of being a 'restoration to biodiversity' led Local Plan, and one which the long-term potential of best and most versatile agricultural soils, but this is not evident from the Plan. In cases where there is a conflict, MGL proposes that the plan and the strategic objectives should identify this. Accordingly, MGL suggests a rewording of 506,

"Maximise biodiversity gain by creating new habitats at a landscape-scale through mineral restoration schemes which take in to account the Council's priority for biodiversity-led restoration, focusing on priorities set out in the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, in particular meeting reed bed and floodplain grazing marsh targets through sand and gravel restoration schemes, and heathland targets through sandstone restoration schemes, and achieving the targets set out in the Water Framework Directive objectives but only where to do so would not compromise other objectives such as the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils.11

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

5. No comment

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

6. MGL opposes Policy 5P2 - Mineral Provision and in particular part b} of the strategy which is to give priority to the extension of existing sites. Not only is this contrary to national policy and guidance, but it also entrenches an uncompetitive market by nakedly preferring incumbent operators and raising barriers to entry to the local aggregates market to new firms, and it has not been shown to be justified by evidence.

7. PPG paragraph 27-010 specifically states in answer to the question, "Under what circumstances would it be preferable to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than plan for new sites?" that "The suitability of each proposed site, whether an extension to an existing site or a new site, must be considered on its individual merits..." There is therefore no allowance for a policy preference as the Plan seeks to have; all sites must be treated on their merits, and the evidence should be presented to be able to judge whether the comparative merits in each case have been examined. We suggest that the policy preference set out in this policy and explained in paragraph 3.11 is contrary to national policy and guidance and should be removed .

8. Accordingly ,
"Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
1. The strategy for the supply of minerals in Nottinghamshire is as follows:
a) Identify suitable land for mineral extraction to maintain a steady and adequate supply of minerals during the plan period;
b) Give priority to the e-xtension of e-xistiny sites, where economically, socially and environmentally acceptable ;
c) Allow for development on non-allocated sites where a need can be dem onstrated ; and
d) Ensure the provision of minerals in the plan remains in-line with wider economic trends through regular monitoring. "

9. MGL also doubts that the level of provision has been arrived at with due regard to part d) of the strategy since the way the provision has been calculated fails to take account of such wider economic trends.

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

10. MGL objects to Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration and in particular part 1 of the policy which does not clarify sufficiently the potential conflict with the type of restoration sought and the need to preserve the long term potential of best and most versatile soils. Although paragraph 3.23 contains some guidance on what habitats might be created there is no specific allowance for restoration to agriculture where it is necessary to retain the best and most versatile soils. Essentially, MGL is seeking the acknowledgement that agricultural afteruses are still important for the best soils which is conta ine d in paragraph 3.28, for inclusion in the policy to aid clarification of potentially conflicting objectives.

11. Accordingly ,
"Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration
1. 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 . Best and Most Versatile Soils may be returned to an agricultural afteruse in appropriate cases.11

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

12. No comment

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

13. Whilst the objective of the policy is laudable there are two considerations which are either not clear, or have been missed.

14. Firstly, if the preference for extensions and their claimed lack of environmental impact is partly based on the availability of infrastructure or potential for barge transport, and this is a major consideration in the choice of a site for inclusion in the plan, then MGL considers that such transport ought to become mandatory for a proportion of the proposed development, otherwise it vitiates the reason for the choice of the site. Such considerations are already part of the minerals policy of the Yorkshire Dales National park, which requires a certain proportion of quarry output to be transported by rail (negotiable) and MGL considers the same type of policy would be appropriate here. Thus the enforcement of a minimum proportion to be transported from a site by barge could be achieved through a legal agreement and this is commended to the mpa.

15. Secondly, minimising travel is a major consideration of national policy for sustainable transport (NPPF 2, para 103) . Therefore, it follows that in a local policy on sustainable transport similar considerations will apply. Not only does this relate to the use of alternative transport modes but also to that which reduces the levels of imports to an area, where local material can be used instead, which is a different point to sites being in close proximity to markets; this is about reducing the levels of material traded unnecessarily between areas. This is in accordance with the draft Plan which says that sand and gravel is a relatively low cost mineral and is not generally cost effective to transport over long dist ances . The plan should actively seek to provide minerals supplies indigenously in accordance with national policy and should repatriate material imported from other areas, if it can be supplied locally.

16. Accordingly,
11Po licy SPS - Sustainable Transport
1. All mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. At those sites where barge or rail is proposed, proposals will be expected to make provision for an appropriate reduction in road haulage to be secured through a legal agreement.
2. Where it can be demonstrated that there is no viable alternative to road transport, all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows:
a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets to minimise transport movement; and
b) 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.
3. Proposals requiring the bulk transport of minerals, minerals waste/fill or materials/substances used for the extraction of minerals by road will be required to demonstrate that more sustainable forms of transport are not viable.
4. Proposals for mineral development will be supported where unnecessary imports are reduced or avoided."
Question 7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

17. . MGL considers that Policy SP6 does not deal with potential conflicts between different policy areas, nor provide advice on where the balance lies when considering such conflicts . Our major concern is the conflict between a biodiversity led restoration policy approach and the need to conserve best and most versatile soils. Apart from saying that the loss of agricultural land to wetland can be managed (paragraph 3.60) the plan is silent on how this can be achieved and what policy position would be taken when loss of agricultural land is unavoidable.

18. MGL believes what is needed is a statement about the level of acceptable losses of best and most versatile soils (say, limited to less than 20 ha) and an indication of how to minimise such losses even if this should be at the expense of less wetland habitat. The plan should also say that if restoration schemes can demonstrate that soil grade can be preserved so there is no permanent loss of agricultural land or its quality, then the NPPF policy of preference of development of poorer quality land over higher quality land does not apply (NPPF footnote 53).

19. Accordingly, MGL considers this could best be handled by additional explanatory text in paragraph 3.60;

"Agricultural land and Soil
3.60. Minerals development often involves large areas of land and is limited to areas where the mineral naturally occurs and agricultural land quality is often heavily influenced by the underlying geology. This means that a balance has to be made between the need for the mineral and the protection of the agricultural land. Land quality varies from place to place. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC} provides a method for assessing the quality of farmland to enable informecf choices to be made about its future use within the planning system. The ALC system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into Subgrades 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The majority of sand and gravel extraction in the Trent and Idle Valleys will result in the substantial permanent loss of agricultural land to wetland which along, with other development pre ssures, is causing a continuous erosion of the County's finite agricultural resources. However, appropriate management and restoration of mineral workings can secure the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils. For example, limited loss of such land (to less than 20ha} or only temporary disturbance to high quality soils where soil quality can be demonstrated to be preserved or enhanced, will not be considered to be contrary to national policy to prefer the development of poorer quality land over higher quality areas.11

20. Regarding infrastructure in paragraph 3.66 the Local Plan is in danger of mispresenting the legal situation. Not all infrastructure has rights of absolute protection. Utility companies install below ground infrastructure under explicit title provision that should the land and mineral owners wish to extract minerals then either the apparatus is removed or compensation is paid when the working face approaches the pipeline and a statutory notice is served. This is a commercial
matter and the planning system should not be used to subvert the legitimate rights of landowners under other codes. Accordingly, paragraph 3.66 should be modified as follows,

"Infrastructure
3.66. Nottinghamshire has an extensive physical network of transport, communications, water, energy, and waste infrastructure. Mineral working provides the raw materials to maintain much of this essential infrastructure but it is important that the process of mineral extraction does not compromise the operation of existing or planned future infrastructure. When considering development proposals, consultation will take place with the utility companies, rail operators and other network providers. will be re€{uired to identify potential risks and to ensure appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation measures. This is likely to include the need for appropriate stand offs from overhead or underground transmission cables, buried or surface pipelines and rail i frastructure. Appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation measures may be required in certain circumstances, or provision will be made to relocate the infrastructure to accommodate minerals working. 11

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

21. No Comment

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

22. No Comment

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

23. MGL considers that the Local Plan severely under-provides for sand and gravel. In particular, reliance on a bare 10 year average past sales as a forecast of future demand is clearly not appropriate on its own . Thus the Local Plan does not take into account planned development so that the LAA 'forecast' is based entirely on past sales trends contrary to national policy and guidance (NPPF paragraph 207 a) & PPG paragraph 27-064).

24. Since the averages of the last 10 years' production are heavily skewed towards recessionary conditions, by basing future provision on such a figure the Council risks building in a permanent loss of capacity at a time of increased market demand, and expectations by communities for new houses and more jobs. If Nottinghamshire underprovides for its own needs, it will put strain on other areas to make up the shortfall.

25. There are two possible approaches to a consideration of future demand. First, the statistical link between sand and gravel production and housing completions may be used, which can be derived from figures used in the LAA. Using sand and gravel and soft sand sales and housing completions between 2007 and 2016 gives a Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) of +0.700642 which is a statistically significant linear relationship, and which has an equally strong basis as a
causative effect. Applying the expected annual average planned housing completion rate for the county over the plan period of 4,574 dwellings to that PCC using the forecast function in Excel gives a return sand and gravel/soft sand forecast of 3.17 Mt pa. Deducting a figure of 0.37 Mtpa for soft sand leaves a sand and gravel provision figure of 2.8 Mtpa which MGL suggests is a robust alternative to the 10 year average .

26. There is a statement in the LAA that implies that one cannot use housing completions to forecast sand and gravel demand because it is only part of the overall demand and sand and gravel gets used for other construction projects. However, this is a red herring for two reasons. One, if there exists a statistically significant linear relationship between two variables which are causatively linked then knowing one variable leads to the prediction of the other variable. This is why statistically significant relationships are researched in all walks of life - to be able to make predictions. Therefore, it is irrelevant that sand and gravel is used for other things. The statistical relationship is all that is necessary to predict future sand and gravel demand knowing future housing completion rates. Two, construction of housing goes hand in hand with other types of development requiring sand and gravel such as commercial, retail, industrial and infrastructure, which are all related to population and economic growth. The driving force of sand and gravel demand is not housing per se but the underlying economic and population growth. Therefore, if it can be shown to be statistically significant then the relationship between sand and gravel and housing completions can be used as a proxy for all types of develo pment .

27. Second, the situation in Nottinghamshire is similar to that pertaining in Oxfordshire. Here, the onset of the recession led to the major operators mothballing sites and delaying implementation of planning permissions, just as in Nottinghamshire and transferring production to other sites outside of the county. These commercial decisions in Oxfordshire reduced the 10 year rolling average below what it would have been had these commercial decisions not been taken. Oxfordshire took the view that it would be prudent to assume that this would only be a temporary market distortion and that as growth returned production would recommence at the affected sites. As such, the 10 year average would underestimate the true level of future demand.

28. Quantification of the effect was approached by considering how the county's sales had reduced compared to the whole of England during the baseline period . Given that the county and the country were subject to the same recession, it was reasonable to conclude that any differences between the percentages during the period reflected specific local factors.

29. If this approach is applied to Nottinghamshire then in the five year period prior to the recession (2004-2008} Nottinghamshire's sand and gravel sales (including soft sand} as a proportion of all England averaged 6.53%. In the last year (2016} the proportion was 3.85%. If this is converted into a figure for the county linked to the current level of sales in England which in 2016 was
41.26 Million tonnes, then applying a pre-recession proportion of 6.53% gives us a demand for Nottinghamshire of 2.694 Million tonnes. Once an allowance for soft sand has been deducted, the like-for-like sand and gravel demand figure is about 2.4 Million tonnes pa. Although this is
lower than the first method, this is because all the Oxfordshire method does is restore the county to conditions as they were before the distorting effects of the recession; it does not explicitly take account of future growth, which is why the statistical method is to be preferred.

30. Both these alternative methods demonstrate that the 10 year average should not be pursued by the County Council if it wants to provide for future growth and truly take into account other relevant local information in accordance with national policy. MGL strongly urges the County Council to abandon its current methodology and to adopt a more realistic alternative as outlined here.

31. Accordingly,
uPolicy MP1: Aggregate Provision
1. To meet identified levels of demand for aggregate mineral over the plan period {2017- 2036) the following provision will be made:
- J-2-.Jf} 53.20 million tonnes of Sand and Gravel
- 7.03 million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone
- 0.09 million tonnes of crushed rock
2. The County Council will make provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel, 7 years for Sherwood Sandstone and 10 years for crushed rock, whilst maintaining a steady and adequate supply over the plan period.
3. Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated ."
Moreover, the County Council's policy of preferring extensions over new sites and underproviding for the total quantity of sand and gravel and favours incumbent companies over new entrants, which is anti -co mpet it ive. An analysis of the allocations compared to Appendix 2: Delivery Schedule shows two major outcomes 33. The first outcome is that one company has been granted 60% of the allocations (Chart 1) and the next largest allocation is one new ent rant. This means that some companies have been left out completely and have no new reserves to replace exhausted operations further reducing the spread of competition in the county. This is fundamentally anticompetitive. Moreover, the second major outcome is shown in Chart 2.
34. Chart 2 shows the allocations split between the three production/market areas of the Plan. The light blue line shows the total allocated and this does not reach the policy level proposed to be adopted at any point in the Plan period. Moreover, capacity falls off rapidly after 2030 to nominal levels as existing pits close through exhaust ion. There fore, the plan does not make full provision for productive capacity through any part of its plan period.

35. It is clear that if a non-doctrinaire approach to provision is taken, which includes provision for planned growth and for maintaining productive capacity, and is more equal in the allocation of reserves across a number of companies, t hen much more provision is needed.

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

36. MGL has no comment about the specifics of the allocations except to reiterate the need for more provision in the form of new quarries and a more equitable spread of sites among the industry. Thus MGL wishes to promote is own site at Flash Farm, Averham. This site was allocated in the former abandoned Plan in 2016, and clearly retains a number of advantages which make its suitable for working. This means that it has no overriding adverse environmental impacts and the only reason it appears not to have been included in this plan is the change of approach to local plan provision following the County Council elections of 2017.

37. This site located on the A617 at Averham west of Newark and would produce about 200,000 tonnes of high quality aggregate a year for markets to the north of Nottingham, Ashfield, Mansfield and possibly Derbyshire beyond. Some material is also likely to be sold in the Newark area.

38. A planning application including a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared for the Flash Farm quarry (see Drg N° F18/15/01). The application is in an advanced state to formally submit to the County Council. However, that submission is currently being held in abeyance awaiting the progression of the consultation process but demonstrates a clear commitment to "deliver" the site.

39. The environmental appraisals undertaken have raised no issues that would warrant refusal of the development proposals and confirm that the site is eminently suitable as a Local Plan all ocat ion.

40. The site is located partially within the western floodplain of the north-eastward flowing River Trent and consists of gravels and sandy gravels concealed in part by shallow deposits of alluvium. The mineral deposit is characterised by low fines content and high percentage of gravel. The gravel fraction is predominantly fine with occasional cobbles whilst the sand is medium grained and these consist primarily of quartz and quartzite with subordinate amounts of flint, chert and sandstone.

41. The site lies in the Trent Valley in the Trent Washlands Landscape Character Area and the proposed extraction area is largely flat lying at about 14m AOD and located in open countryside characterised by large fields, low hedges with sporadic hedgerow trees, and occasional blocks of woodland on higher ground to the north. It is also fairly isolated with the property of Flash Farm itself located 160 metres to the north. All other properties are at the villages of Averham and Kelham which are 540m and 660m to the south east and north east respectively.

42. The Flash Farm site comprises a number of agricultural fields, sub-divided primarily by fencing, under arable and pasture use. The site is crossed by a 400 Kva overhead power line with three substantial stanchions within the land in question. The wider landscape is dominated by adverse detractors consisting of the Staythorpe Power Station (to the south) and power lines leading from it as well as the dominant flue stack from the sugar beet factory to the north-east.

43. As the mineral extraction area is not sub-divided by any hedgerows, the scheme of working therefore importantly does not require the removal of any sections of vegetation (i.e . hedgerow or trees) whatsoe ver.
44. The quarry has been designed to reinstate the land in a sensitive fashion seeking to apply best environmental practice and give practical effect to strategic government initiatives on protection of soil resources and habitat creation using importation of suitable inert material as a catalyst for the beneficial restoration of the land to be reinstated to its existing "best and most versatile" agricultural land status.

45. Moreover, the opportunity has afforded conditions to create bio-diversity action plan priority habitats such as species rich grassland and lowland wet grassland as well as some 2.3km of new hedgerows (which currently do not exist).

46. The proposed scheme of working has been devised to reflect current landscape improvement and nature conservation policies. Net biodiversity gain would be achieved through the creation of a cohesive network of new habitats, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity. The application site itself is currently of limited ecological value with a majority of the site consisting of intensively managed fields with very limited hedgerows of variable quality within the site itself.

47. Accordingly, the scheme provides a high standard of mitigation by delivering net gain in environmental capital and strategic bio-diversity networks. Such benefits to bio-diversity are envisaged within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance as well as emerging plan policies within the draft Minerals Local Plan which contains a "bio­ diversity led" philosophy for the restoration of quarry workings.

48. Given the site's location the proposed scheme of working can readily provide effective protection against unreasonable noise and dust emissions with the site design carefully aimed to balance protection of the local environment with the requirement to extract and process mineral.

49. The site access will be directly onto the A617 upgrading an existing gated access . The A617 is part of the Strategic Highway Network and policy objectives (locally and nationally) support the use of such roads to transport goods and materials (including miner als) .

50. The Flash Farm site is the only sand and gravel allocation identified within the Consultation Plan in the Newark area lying to the west of Kelham Bridge which is ideally located to serve markets to the north and west of the bridge. Without Flash Farm being present other quarries would have to transport material across Kelham Bridge to serve those same markets. Congestion around Kelham Bridge has been highlighted by the County Council and residents as being of concern although the A 617 is identified as part of the County's Core Road Network. Accordingly, Flash Farm would have a neutral effect as movements west over the bridge would be balanced by movements in the other direction.

51. As such, MGL commends the Flash Farm site to the County Council as a prospective site specific allocation.

52. MGL would like to remind the County Council that this site was allocated in the previous Plan and it consequently was considered suitable for inclusion as a working site. Environmentally, it passed the test of sustainability and therefore should be included in the Plan given the shortfall of provision MGL has identified. An extract of the 'Minerals Local Plan Consultation Submission Draft February 2016, Appendix 3: Site Allocation Development Briefs' is enclosed which contains a description of the sit e.

Questions 12-38
No comment

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Draft Plan Consultation Representations by Mick George Ltd (MGL)

Suggested additions are in bold; suggested deletions are in strikethrough.

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

1. MGL wishes to comment on the Strategic Object ives . Whilst the aspiration in SO1 to increase the levels of aggregate recycling and the use of alternatives from secondary and recycled sources appears laudable it does not seem to be informed by the conclusions of your own LAA (Oct 2017). This remarks that national estimates suggest that around 80-90% of construction and demolition waste is re-used or recycled (in fact, in 2014 only 4% of mineral wastes in England which comprises 'typically construction materials such as bricks, stone and road planings that are converted into usable aggregates' 1 were landfilled). Moreover, the LAA observes that availability of PFA and FBA is likely to disappear by 2025 . The scope for material changes to the quantities of primary minerals needed for development in these circumstances is very low and the Plan should be realistic about what it can achieve. Since so much has been made by some consultees about the substitution of primary aggregates by secondary aggregates, we think the Council should be more explicit in its conclusion that despite the encouragement to be given to the latter, it will not make much difference to the demand levels of the former.

2. There is also an objective to prioritise the improved use or extension of existing sites before considering new locations. MGL believes this is misguided and contrary to national policy. NPPF contains no such provision, whilst PPG advises that there are cons as well as pros when considering extensions and new sites, and that therefore all proposals should be treated on their merits. Each operator should be allowed to make a case for new working without being hamstrung by a policy bias.
3. MGL therefore opposes both statements in 501 and suggests a rewording,

"Ensure more efficient exploitation and use of primary mineral resources by minimising waste, increasin(j .lev-els of atjtjretjate recyc!in(j ane the use of alternatives from seconeary ane recyc!ee sources. Secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire. Prioritise the imf}rovee use or <Eftension of e-xistin(j sites before consieerin(j new .locations. Make use of sustainable modes of transport.11

4. MGL has identified that there is a conflict between 506 & 508. Good planning is about the reconciling of competing objectives for land, and a good plan will highlight this and propose appropriate policies to manage the conflict. There is a clear potential for conflict between the competing objectives of being a 'restoration to biodiversity' led Local Plan, and one which the long-term potential of best and most versatile agricultural soils, but this is not evident from the Plan. In cases where there is a conflict, MGL proposes that the plan and the strategic objectives should identify this. Accordingly, MGL suggests a rewording of 506,

"Maximise biodiversity gain by creating new habitats at a landscape-scale through mineral restoration schemes which take in to account the Council's priority for biodiversity-led restoration, focusing on priorities set out in the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, in particular meeting reed bed and floodplain grazing marsh targets through sand and gravel restoration schemes, and heathland targets through sandstone restoration schemes, and achieving the targets set out in the Water Framework Directive objectives but only where to do so would not compromise other objectives such as the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils.11

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

5. No comment

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

6. MGL opposes Policy 5P2 - Mineral Provision and in particular part b} of the strategy which is to give priority to the extension of existing sites. Not only is this contrary to national policy and guidance, but it also entrenches an uncompetitive market by nakedly preferring incumbent operators and raising barriers to entry to the local aggregates market to new firms, and it has not been shown to be justified by evidence.

7. PPG paragraph 27-010 specifically states in answer to the question, "Under what circumstances would it be preferable to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than plan for new sites?" that "The suitability of each proposed site, whether an extension to an existing site or a new site, must be considered on its individual merits..." There is therefore no allowance for a policy preference as the Plan seeks to have; all sites must be treated on their merits, and the evidence should be presented to be able to judge whether the comparative merits in each case have been examined. We suggest that the policy preference set out in this policy and explained in paragraph 3.11 is contrary to national policy and guidance and should be removed .

8. Accordingly ,
"Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
1. The strategy for the supply of minerals in Nottinghamshire is as follows:
a) Identify suitable land for mineral extraction to maintain a steady and adequate supply of minerals during the plan period;
b) Give priority to the e-xtension of e-xistiny sites, where economically, socially and environmentally acceptable ;
c) Allow for development on non-allocated sites where a need can be dem onstrated ; and
d) Ensure the provision of minerals in the plan remains in-line with wider economic trends through regular monitoring. "

9. MGL also doubts that the level of provision has been arrived at with due regard to part d) of the strategy since the way the provision has been calculated fails to take account of such wider economic trends.

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

10. MGL objects to Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration and in particular part 1 of the policy which does not clarify sufficiently the potential conflict with the type of restoration sought and the need to preserve the long term potential of best and most versatile soils. Although paragraph 3.23 contains some guidance on what habitats might be created there is no specific allowance for restoration to agriculture where it is necessary to retain the best and most versatile soils. Essentially, MGL is seeking the acknowledgement that agricultural afteruses are still important for the best soils which is conta ine d in paragraph 3.28, for inclusion in the policy to aid clarification of potentially conflicting objectives.

11. Accordingly ,
"Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration
1. 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 . Best and Most Versatile Soils may be returned to an agricultural afteruse in appropriate cases.11

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

12. No comment

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

13. Whilst the objective of the policy is laudable there are two considerations which are either not clear, or have been missed.

14. Firstly, if the preference for extensions and their claimed lack of environmental impact is partly based on the availability of infrastructure or potential for barge transport, and this is a major consideration in the choice of a site for inclusion in the plan, then MGL considers that such transport ought to become mandatory for a proportion of the proposed development, otherwise it vitiates the reason for the choice of the site. Such considerations are already part of the minerals policy of the Yorkshire Dales National park, which requires a certain proportion of quarry output to be transported by rail (negotiable) and MGL considers the same type of policy would be appropriate here. Thus the enforcement of a minimum proportion to be transported from a site by barge could be achieved through a legal agreement and this is commended to the mpa.

15. Secondly, minimising travel is a major consideration of national policy for sustainable transport (NPPF 2, para 103) . Therefore, it follows that in a local policy on sustainable transport similar considerations will apply. Not only does this relate to the use of alternative transport modes but also to that which reduces the levels of imports to an area, where local material can be used instead, which is a different point to sites being in close proximity to markets; this is about reducing the levels of material traded unnecessarily between areas. This is in accordance with the draft Plan which says that sand and gravel is a relatively low cost mineral and is not generally cost effective to transport over long dist ances . The plan should actively seek to provide minerals supplies indigenously in accordance with national policy and should repatriate material imported from other areas, if it can be supplied locally.

16. Accordingly,
11Po licy SPS - Sustainable Transport
1. All mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. At those sites where barge or rail is proposed, proposals will be expected to make provision for an appropriate reduction in road haulage to be secured through a legal agreement.
2. Where it can be demonstrated that there is no viable alternative to road transport, all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows:
a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets to minimise transport movement; and
b) 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.
3. Proposals requiring the bulk transport of minerals, minerals waste/fill or materials/substances used for the extraction of minerals by road will be required to demonstrate that more sustainable forms of transport are not viable.
4. Proposals for mineral development will be supported where unnecessary imports are reduced or avoided."
Question 7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

17. . MGL considers that Policy SP6 does not deal with potential conflicts between different policy areas, nor provide advice on where the balance lies when considering such conflicts . Our major concern is the conflict between a biodiversity led restoration policy approach and the need to conserve best and most versatile soils. Apart from saying that the loss of agricultural land to wetland can be managed (paragraph 3.60) the plan is silent on how this can be achieved and what policy position would be taken when loss of agricultural land is unavoidable.

18. MGL believes what is needed is a statement about the level of acceptable losses of best and most versatile soils (say, limited to less than 20 ha) and an indication of how to minimise such losses even if this should be at the expense of less wetland habitat. The plan should also say that if restoration schemes can demonstrate that soil grade can be preserved so there is no permanent loss of agricultural land or its quality, then the NPPF policy of preference of development of poorer quality land over higher quality land does not apply (NPPF footnote 53).

19. Accordingly, MGL considers this could best be handled by additional explanatory text in paragraph 3.60;

"Agricultural land and Soil
3.60. Minerals development often involves large areas of land and is limited to areas where the mineral naturally occurs and agricultural land quality is often heavily influenced by the underlying geology. This means that a balance has to be made between the need for the mineral and the protection of the agricultural land. Land quality varies from place to place. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC} provides a method for assessing the quality of farmland to enable informecf choices to be made about its future use within the planning system. The ALC system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into Subgrades 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The majority of sand and gravel extraction in the Trent and Idle Valleys will result in the substantial permanent loss of agricultural land to wetland which along, with other development pre ssures, is causing a continuous erosion of the County's finite agricultural resources. However, appropriate management and restoration of mineral workings can secure the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils. For example, limited loss of such land (to less than 20ha} or only temporary disturbance to high quality soils where soil quality can be demonstrated to be preserved or enhanced, will not be considered to be contrary to national policy to prefer the development of poorer quality land over higher quality areas.11

20. Regarding infrastructure in paragraph 3.66 the Local Plan is in danger of mispresenting the legal situation. Not all infrastructure has rights of absolute protection. Utility companies install below ground infrastructure under explicit title provision that should the land and mineral owners wish to extract minerals then either the apparatus is removed or compensation is paid when the working face approaches the pipeline and a statutory notice is served. This is a commercial
matter and the planning system should not be used to subvert the legitimate rights of landowners under other codes. Accordingly, paragraph 3.66 should be modified as follows,

"Infrastructure
3.66. Nottinghamshire has an extensive physical network of transport, communications, water, energy, and waste infrastructure. Mineral working provides the raw materials to maintain much of this essential infrastructure but it is important that the process of mineral extraction does not compromise the operation of existing or planned future infrastructure. When considering development proposals, consultation will take place with the utility companies, rail operators and other network providers. will be re€{uired to identify potential risks and to ensure appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation measures. This is likely to include the need for appropriate stand offs from overhead or underground transmission cables, buried or surface pipelines and rail i frastructure. Appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation measures may be required in certain circumstances, or provision will be made to relocate the infrastructure to accommodate minerals working. 11

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

21. No Comment

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

22. No Comment

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

23. MGL considers that the Local Plan severely under-provides for sand and gravel. In particular, reliance on a bare 10 year average past sales as a forecast of future demand is clearly not appropriate on its own . Thus the Local Plan does not take into account planned development so that the LAA 'forecast' is based entirely on past sales trends contrary to national policy and guidance (NPPF paragraph 207 a) & PPG paragraph 27-064).

24. Since the averages of the last 10 years' production are heavily skewed towards recessionary conditions, by basing future provision on such a figure the Council risks building in a permanent loss of capacity at a time of increased market demand, and expectations by communities for new houses and more jobs. If Nottinghamshire underprovides for its own needs, it will put strain on other areas to make up the shortfall.

25. There are two possible approaches to a consideration of future demand. First, the statistical link between sand and gravel production and housing completions may be used, which can be derived from figures used in the LAA. Using sand and gravel and soft sand sales and housing completions between 2007 and 2016 gives a Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) of +0.700642 which is a statistically significant linear relationship, and which has an equally strong basis as a
causative effect. Applying the expected annual average planned housing completion rate for the county over the plan period of 4,574 dwellings to that PCC using the forecast function in Excel gives a return sand and gravel/soft sand forecast of 3.17 Mt pa. Deducting a figure of 0.37 Mtpa for soft sand leaves a sand and gravel provision figure of 2.8 Mtpa which MGL suggests is a robust alternative to the 10 year average .

26. There is a statement in the LAA that implies that one cannot use housing completions to forecast sand and gravel demand because it is only part of the overall demand and sand and gravel gets used for other construction projects. However, this is a red herring for two reasons. One, if there exists a statistically significant linear relationship between two variables which are causatively linked then knowing one variable leads to the prediction of the other variable. This is why statistically significant relationships are researched in all walks of life - to be able to make predictions. Therefore, it is irrelevant that sand and gravel is used for other things. The statistical relationship is all that is necessary to predict future sand and gravel demand knowing future housing completion rates. Two, construction of housing goes hand in hand with other types of development requiring sand and gravel such as commercial, retail, industrial and infrastructure, which are all related to population and economic growth. The driving force of sand and gravel demand is not housing per se but the underlying economic and population growth. Therefore, if it can be shown to be statistically significant then the relationship between sand and gravel and housing completions can be used as a proxy for all types of develo pment .

27. Second, the situation in Nottinghamshire is similar to that pertaining in Oxfordshire. Here, the onset of the recession led to the major operators mothballing sites and delaying implementation of planning permissions, just as in Nottinghamshire and transferring production to other sites outside of the county. These commercial decisions in Oxfordshire reduced the 10 year rolling average below what it would have been had these commercial decisions not been taken. Oxfordshire took the view that it would be prudent to assume that this would only be a temporary market distortion and that as growth returned production would recommence at the affected sites. As such, the 10 year average would underestimate the true level of future demand.

28. Quantification of the effect was approached by considering how the county's sales had reduced compared to the whole of England during the baseline period . Given that the county and the country were subject to the same recession, it was reasonable to conclude that any differences between the percentages during the period reflected specific local factors.

29. If this approach is applied to Nottinghamshire then in the five year period prior to the recession (2004-2008} Nottinghamshire's sand and gravel sales (including soft sand} as a proportion of all England averaged 6.53%. In the last year (2016} the proportion was 3.85%. If this is converted into a figure for the county linked to the current level of sales in England which in 2016 was
41.26 Million tonnes, then applying a pre-recession proportion of 6.53% gives us a demand for Nottinghamshire of 2.694 Million tonnes. Once an allowance for soft sand has been deducted, the like-for-like sand and gravel demand figure is about 2.4 Million tonnes pa. Although this is
lower than the first method, this is because all the Oxfordshire method does is restore the county to conditions as they were before the distorting effects of the recession; it does not explicitly take account of future growth, which is why the statistical method is to be preferred.

30. Both these alternative methods demonstrate that the 10 year average should not be pursued by the County Council if it wants to provide for future growth and truly take into account other relevant local information in accordance with national policy. MGL strongly urges the County Council to abandon its current methodology and to adopt a more realistic alternative as outlined here.

31. Accordingly,
uPolicy MP1: Aggregate Provision
1. To meet identified levels of demand for aggregate mineral over the plan period {2017- 2036) the following provision will be made:
- J-2-.Jf} 53.20 million tonnes of Sand and Gravel
- 7.03 million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone
- 0.09 million tonnes of crushed rock
2. The County Council will make provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel, 7 years for Sherwood Sandstone and 10 years for crushed rock, whilst maintaining a steady and adequate supply over the plan period.
3. Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated ."
Moreover, the County Council's policy of preferring extensions over new sites and underproviding for the total quantity of sand and gravel and favours incumbent companies over new entrants, which is anti -co mpet it ive. An analysis of the allocations compared to Appendix 2: Delivery Schedule shows two major outcomes 33. The first outcome is that one company has been granted 60% of the allocations (Chart 1) and the next largest allocation is one new ent rant. This means that some companies have been left out completely and have no new reserves to replace exhausted operations further reducing the spread of competition in the county. This is fundamentally anticompetitive. Moreover, the second major outcome is shown in Chart 2.
34. Chart 2 shows the allocations split between the three production/market areas of the Plan. The light blue line shows the total allocated and this does not reach the policy level proposed to be adopted at any point in the Plan period. Moreover, capacity falls off rapidly after 2030 to nominal levels as existing pits close through exhaust ion. There fore, the plan does not make full provision for productive capacity through any part of its plan period.

35. It is clear that if a non-doctrinaire approach to provision is taken, which includes provision for planned growth and for maintaining productive capacity, and is more equal in the allocation of reserves across a number of companies, t hen much more provision is needed.

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

36. MGL has no comment about the specifics of the allocations except to reiterate the need for more provision in the form of new quarries and a more equitable spread of sites among the industry. Thus MGL wishes to promote is own site at Flash Farm, Averham. This site was allocated in the former abandoned Plan in 2016, and clearly retains a number of advantages which make its suitable for working. This means that it has no overriding adverse environmental impacts and the only reason it appears not to have been included in this plan is the change of approach to local plan provision following the County Council elections of 2017.

37. This site located on the A617 at Averham west of Newark and would produce about 200,000 tonnes of high quality aggregate a year for markets to the north of Nottingham, Ashfield, Mansfield and possibly Derbyshire beyond. Some material is also likely to be sold in the Newark area.

38. A planning application including a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared for the Flash Farm quarry (see Drg N° F18/15/01). The application is in an advanced state to formally submit to the County Council. However, that submission is currently being held in abeyance awaiting the progression of the consultation process but demonstrates a clear commitment to "deliver" the site.

39. The environmental appraisals undertaken have raised no issues that would warrant refusal of the development proposals and confirm that the site is eminently suitable as a Local Plan all ocat ion.

40. The site is located partially within the western floodplain of the north-eastward flowing River Trent and consists of gravels and sandy gravels concealed in part by shallow deposits of alluvium. The mineral deposit is characterised by low fines content and high percentage of gravel. The gravel fraction is predominantly fine with occasional cobbles whilst the sand is medium grained and these consist primarily of quartz and quartzite with subordinate amounts of flint, chert and sandstone.

41. The site lies in the Trent Valley in the Trent Washlands Landscape Character Area and the proposed extraction area is largely flat lying at about 14m AOD and located in open countryside characterised by large fields, low hedges with sporadic hedgerow trees, and occasional blocks of woodland on higher ground to the north. It is also fairly isolated with the property of Flash Farm itself located 160 metres to the north. All other properties are at the villages of Averham and Kelham which are 540m and 660m to the south east and north east respectively.

42. The Flash Farm site comprises a number of agricultural fields, sub-divided primarily by fencing, under arable and pasture use. The site is crossed by a 400 Kva overhead power line with three substantial stanchions within the land in question. The wider landscape is dominated by adverse detractors consisting of the Staythorpe Power Station (to the south) and power lines leading from it as well as the dominant flue stack from the sugar beet factory to the north-east.

43. As the mineral extraction area is not sub-divided by any hedgerows, the scheme of working therefore importantly does not require the removal of any sections of vegetation (i.e . hedgerow or trees) whatsoe ver.
44. The quarry has been designed to reinstate the land in a sensitive fashion seeking to apply best environmental practice and give practical effect to strategic government initiatives on protection of soil resources and habitat creation using importation of suitable inert material as a catalyst for the beneficial restoration of the land to be reinstated to its existing "best and most versatile" agricultural land status.

45. Moreover, the opportunity has afforded conditions to create bio-diversity action plan priority habitats such as species rich grassland and lowland wet grassland as well as some 2.3km of new hedgerows (which currently do not exist).

46. The proposed scheme of working has been devised to reflect current landscape improvement and nature conservation policies. Net biodiversity gain would be achieved through the creation of a cohesive network of new habitats, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity. The application site itself is currently of limited ecological value with a majority of the site consisting of intensively managed fields with very limited hedgerows of variable quality within the site itself.

47. Accordingly, the scheme provides a high standard of mitigation by delivering net gain in environmental capital and strategic bio-diversity networks. Such benefits to bio-diversity are envisaged within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance as well as emerging plan policies within the draft Minerals Local Plan which contains a "bio­ diversity led" philosophy for the restoration of quarry workings.

48. Given the site's location the proposed scheme of working can readily provide effective protection against unreasonable noise and dust emissions with the site design carefully aimed to balance protection of the local environment with the requirement to extract and process mineral.

49. The site access will be directly onto the A617 upgrading an existing gated access . The A617 is part of the Strategic Highway Network and policy objectives (locally and nationally) support the use of such roads to transport goods and materials (including miner als) .

50. The Flash Farm site is the only sand and gravel allocation identified within the Consultation Plan in the Newark area lying to the west of Kelham Bridge which is ideally located to serve markets to the north and west of the bridge. Without Flash Farm being present other quarries would have to transport material across Kelham Bridge to serve those same markets. Congestion around Kelham Bridge has been highlighted by the County Council and residents as being of concern although the A 617 is identified as part of the County's Core Road Network. Accordingly, Flash Farm would have a neutral effect as movements west over the bridge would be balanced by movements in the other direction.

51. As such, MGL commends the Flash Farm site to the County Council as a prospective site specific allocation.

52. MGL would like to remind the County Council that this site was allocated in the previous Plan and it consequently was considered suitable for inclusion as a working site. Environmentally, it passed the test of sustainability and therefore should be included in the Plan given the shortfall of provision MGL has identified. An extract of the 'Minerals Local Plan Consultation Submission Draft February 2016, Appendix 3: Site Allocation Development Briefs' is enclosed which contains a description of the sit e.

Questions 12-38
No comment

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 .........."