Question 11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30977
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: Dr Simon Cooper
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, impacting on physical and mental health wellbeing of residents
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Please additionally note that there is substantial evidence to suggest that access to green spaces (and near proximity) significantly influences physical and mental health. Allowing this proposal to go ahead would thus adversely impact the physical and mental health of local residents. I would be happy to present such findings at any public consultation meetings on the matter.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30978
Received: 21/09/2018
Respondent: Dr Bernard Spilsbury
Objection to MP2s. Recognize a need for sand and gravel but a alternative site must be found. This is not out of self interest but concern of the damage to the area. Please do reconsider, the price to be paid by the damage to Barton, Attenborough Nature reserve would be too high if permission is granted. I wish to protect the younger generation, there must be a less damaging site which can be made available.
My objection to sand and gravel provision MP2s Mill Hill NR Barton in Fabis
I write (as a worried oldie) who recognizing the need for sand and gravel think that alternative site MUST be found in this instance.
At my age I do not have self interest here but am generally worried about the short & long term damage to the area if the go ahead is given.
I have read (and re-read) the proposed development plan and am worried that the Notts County Council has includied the site in their new draft minerals local plan.
PLEASE PLEASE do reconsider. The price to be price to be paid by the damage to Barton and the adjacent Attenborough Nature reserve (a treasured asset which would inevitably be damage if planning permission is granted) is too high.
I wish to protect the younger generation there must be less damaging sites which can be made available.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30980
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: Gillian Smith
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Environmental damage
Landscape damage
Loss of agricultural land
Effects could be devastating to Clifton and its residents
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30981
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: GC Young
object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30982
Received: 21/09/2018
Respondent: J Godd
I am writing to object to MP2s. The scheme will have detrimental effects on farm businesses in the local area, reducing revenue. Also horse riders would lose an amenity long enjoyed in the area. The site would largely impact on farm workers, horse riders, walkers, house holders in neighboring areas and students nearby.
Will compensation be given if it was to go ahead? Everyone is against the scheme and it is hoped that it never comes to fruition.
Reference: Sand and gravel provision site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
I am writing to confirm I wish to OBJECT to the above site, I am the local farmer in the village of Clifton. I have been an agricultural tenant under the Nottingham City Council since March 29th 1945. As well as running the arable side of things, the family also run a very successful Home Livery business. Should this scheme be allowed to happen, the business would suffer gross detrimental effects, with a massive reduction to the farms revenue. Also the horse riders would lose a pleasurable ammenity which they have enjoyed for many, many years in the past, and present. It would have tremendous effect on all concerned, namely farm workers, horse riders, walkers, including all the house holders from Clifton-Wilford and hundreds of students from the local Trent University, in the Village of Clifton. In fact the local community would suffer in many ways; should the scheme be allowed to go ahead. What have the company got in mind regarding compensation, should it get the go ahead? If the worse were to happen. Everyone is whole heartedly against the scheme, and hope that it never comes to fruition.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30983
Received: 21/09/2018
Respondent: J Godd
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Reference: Sand and gravel provision site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
I am writing to confirm I wish to OBJECT to the above site, I am the local farmer in the village of Clifton. I have been an agricultural tenant under the Nottingham City Council since March 29th 1945. As well as running the arable side of things, the family also run a very successful Home Livery business. Should this scheme be allowed to happen, the business would suffer gross detrimental effects, with a massive reduction to the farms revenue. Also the horse riders would lose a pleasurable ammenity which they have enjoyed for many, many years in the past, and present. It would have tremendous effect on all concerned, namely farm workers, horse riders, walkers, including all the house holders from Clifton-Wilford and hundreds of students from the local Trent University, in the Village of Clifton. In fact the local community would suffer in many ways; should the scheme be allowed to go ahead. What have the company got in mind regarding compensation, should it get the go ahead? If the worse were to happen. Everyone is whole heartedly against the scheme, and hope that it never comes to fruition.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30984
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: John Edward Hogg
Number of people: 3
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30985
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: June Hogg
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30986
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: Susan Hogg
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30987
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: June Bowman
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30988
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: Mr Martyn Lamb
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30989
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: Mr A M Greenhalgh
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of lifee, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used by a wider community. Already heavily disrupted in this area.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
We've had enough disruption in this area with the A453 and the tram system and carpark.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30990
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: Mr Allardice
Number of people: 2
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30991
Received: 20/09/2018
Respondent: Patrick Edge
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies.
Living nearby to the site, we have already endured the A453 and tram works. The site will impact my health and well being due to loss of peace and tranquility with the noise and dust.
Ref: Sand and Gravel Provision site 'MP"s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The Barton/ Mill Hill site was evaluated as the 3rd most environmentally damaging site in the long term of all those proposed in the county by your own Sustainability Assessment.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There are no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas, The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The site would impact on two SSSIs, Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit, which are close to the site, and on five LWS's, one of which will be destroyed altogether.
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. The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
The Council have failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barage' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
As an elderly disabled resident who resides in close proximity to the proposed site, we have already endured the upheaval of the A453 widening and the tram project. I am housebound and this proposal will have a considerable impact on my health and well being due to loss of peace and tranquillity with the noise and dust.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30993
Received: 21/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs F Claydon
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30994
Received: 24/09/2018
Respondent: Jean Green
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30995
Received: 12/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs Vendela Peterson
Site MP2s- object for the following reasons
Council: Own SA says is most damaging. Is unsound as no data relating to geographical spread. No projection for demand, Shelford and Coddington cannot be opposed. Building projects used to justify the site are better served by others.
Environment: In the greenbelt, affects ancient woodland, SSSI, SINCs and birdlife.
Local population: Impacted by noise and dust, loss of quality of life.
Historical: Evidence of archaeological interest areas
Agriculture and flood: Will lose agricultural land, restoration is lengthy. The flood risk is very negative, house insurance is already difficult, with this enhancing the difificulty.
Re: Sand & Gravel Provision Site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton-in-Fabis
OBJECTION
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site on the grounds that the application will have a severe detriment on the area including public health, environmental impact and the ruin of historic sites. In addition as stated below there is no current requirement for additional quarry sites of this proposal.
I cannot therefore understand why this application is being pushed through.
The County Council
The County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites I the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over-riding the adverse impact on sustainability. However, the Council has stated that 'there is no published data relating to. Geographical Spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The county Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified against the weight of evidence to use these ties as opposed to the area above.
The council has failed to follow it's own 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 SSSIs (Site of Special Scientific Interest)- Attenborough nature Reserve and Holme Pity- which are both close to the site, and on five LWSs (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
The County Council has stated that the current 'landbank' for sand and gravel exceeds government targets.
Building projects claimed to justify this application are either not due to start for several years or are better supplied by existing or potential quarries nearer to those sites.
The County Council is preparing a new Minerals Local Plan which will involved recalculating future demand and independently comparing all potential sites together. This application seeds to get around this process,
The County Council's own assessment of the sustainability and environmental impact on this sites resulted in it's rejection and exclusion from the previous draft Mineral Local Plan.
The Environment
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
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.
As stated above- The site would result in a major impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest)Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
The site is close to areas which are protected by the Wildlife Trust which is protecting rare butterflies and other fauna and flora in the area. All of which would be severely damaged, if not destroyed, by the impact of this applicaition.
There is evidence that this site is rich in birdlife and other species of which 24 are classed as Red and 22 Amber- all of which use the area for feeding and breeding including Corn Buntings, Barn Owls, grass snakes, harvest mice to mention a few.
Local Population
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust. I find this threat is already having an impact on my health with breathing problems and also the continuous noise from the site site and increased traffic on the nearby roads. This will affect a far wider community due to the positioning of the site.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
There are few such areas which can provide recreation and a feeling of countryside nearby. My husband and I are nature lovers and walk every day in the locality looking at bird life, butterflies and your proposal would destroy this at one stroke.
I believe that the loss of a significant area f 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 city dwellers.
Historical damage
This area is full of history and archaeological interest areas. Indeed parts of the area are from the Roman Period and in addition Iron and Bronze age have been documented in this area. Ridge and Furrow Field patterns from the middle-ages are also documented in the area.
Clifton Villages was featured in the Doomsday Book. The application will have a total adverse impact on Clifton Village- which is a conservation area- and, I believe, Nottingham City's only village.
Agriculture and Flood Risk
The loss of agricultural land cannot be forgotten in this application. This will impact on the mileage if bringing in food to the area- a particular concern- and with the added impact of climate change- we should be encouraging more, not less, agricultural land.
The proposal is to restore the land to standing water- mainly marshland- which does not help agriculture and the proposal is to restore the site.... in 25 years time!! During the time in the area, of course the whole site will be difficult to police and the plant and machinery plus deep water ponds etc could be a risk to children.
There is already a flood risk in the area and the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal report has identified the flood risk in the area as 'very negative'. Houses already find it difficult to get insurance house prices will fall. I believe the impact of the application will greatly affect this.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30996
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: Pauleen Davies
Object to Mill Hill site.
I moved to the year a while ago and came to the area to live in peace and quiet as did many of my fellow residents. The majority of us have served both the city and county and deserve better treatment in our few remaining years. Please reconsider.
Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis
I write to confirm that I strongly object to the above ste being used to obtain sand and gravel.
I have lived at Lark Hill for eight and a half years and am now 92 years old. Many of my fellow residents come to live here for peace and quiet in our old age as did I. The majority of us have served both the city county and deserve better treatment in our few remaining years.
Please reconsider
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30997
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: Pauleen Davies
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis
I write to confirm that I strongly object to the above ste being used to obtain sand and gravel.
I have lived at Lark Hill for eight and a half years and am now 92 years old. Many of my fellow residents come to live here for peace and quiet in our old age as did I. The majority of us have served both the city county and deserve better treatment in our few remaining years.
Please reconsider
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30998
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs P E Connor
I wish to object to the Mill Hill site. I suffer from several heart and respiratory health problems and the site will definitely impact my health. There are over 400 elderly people living in Lark Hill and this will affect any who suffer from breathing or respiratory problems as experienced during construction of the A453 and the tram Park and Ride. The proposed processing plant is only few hundred yards from Lark Hill.
The councils SA shows this is the most damaging site, it would change the landscape and bird life forever.
Reference Sand Gravel Provision Site MP2s Mill Hill
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site. I suffer from asthma, high blood pressure and atrial fibrillation and this will most definitely have an adverse affect on my health. I would point out there are over 400 elderly people living in Lark Hill and this will affect any who suffer from breathing or respiratory problems as was the case during construction of the A453 and the tram Park and Ride. The proposed processing plant at the top of Mill Hill is only few hundred yards from Lark Hill.
The County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The environmental damage will change the landscape and the bird life forever. How can you carry out this proposal when the citizens of the UK are constantly being asked by the government to protect the environment?
I would welcome your comments.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 30999
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: Ron Harding
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31000
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: S Bawry
Objection to MP2S.
Visit regularly to Attenborough nature reserve and shocked by the proposal which will upset open countryside and local wildlife.
The reserve is a beautiful place to enjoy nature, something that should be protected. It is not suitable for sand and gravel extraction as will disrupt SSSI sites.
The reserve educates and encourages all ages to appreciate and respect nature, helping to conserve it and the wildlife. In our declining 21st century landscape, this must be taken seriously. Please say no to proposal MP2.
Reference: MP2s (Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis) Sand and Gravel provision
As a regular weekly visitor to the Attenborough Nature Reserve, I am writing to you to say that I am shocked and upset that this beautiful area of open countryside,. home for many species of Wildlife, is being proposed for Sand and gravel extraction.
I object strongly to this proposal.
Walking here and enjoying watching the variety of birds and farmland species which are an urgent conservation priority, makes me feel relaxed, helps with stresses I have. It's such a beautiful, peaceful place to enjoy nature. I bring my family here. It saddens me deeply that this could be taken away, as it affects so much when we are in a time of changing climate. Surely this is not a suitable area for sand and gravel extraction. Many species depend on it for survival, with a huge disrutpion of what is an area of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, let along impact on communities and visitors to this wonderful place.
The Attenborough Nature Reserve resposibly educated and encourages families, people of all ages and abilities and future generation to appreciate and respect nature in helping conserve our natural surroundings and wildlife. In our declining 21st century landscape this must be taken seriously.
PLEASE SAY NO TO PROPOSAL MP2
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31001
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Miss Aimee Elliott
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust. 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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits.
I OBJECT to the Sand and Gravel Provision Site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis. The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) -Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWSs ((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. 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 which would be impacted by noise and dust. 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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31003
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs Helen Copeland
I wish to object to the proposed sand and gravel provision at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis. This will affect the 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species that use the area for feeding and breeding. The site is also within the GREEN BELT. Surely the green belt should be protected, not destroyed? I personally use this area for its peace and tranquillity to combat anxiety/depression. I also believe the plant/transport required would have a serious environmental impact that would take years to overcome.
I wish to object to the proposed sand and gravel provision at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis. This will affect the 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species that use the area for feeding and breeding. The site is also within the GREEN BELT. Surely the green belt should be protected, not destroyed? I personally use this area for its peace and tranquillity to combat anxiety/depression. I also believe the plant/transport required would have a serious environmental impact that would take years to overcome.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31018
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: Clifford William Harrison
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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.
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31019
Received: 21/09/2018
Respondent: T Hurst
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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 which would be impacted by noise and dust
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31021
Received: 27/09/2018
Respondent: Aggergate Industries
There is a deficit of mineral production of 30,000-220,000tpa throughout the plan process based upon existing 10 average sales.
Additional sites are required during the plan period to ensure a steady supply of mineral
There is a deficit of mineral production of 30,000-220,000tpa throughout the plan process based upon existing 10 average sales.
Additional sites are required during the plan period to ensure a steady supply of mineral
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31023
Received: 21/09/2018
Respondent: T Charlesworth
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. 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.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (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.
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 which would be impacted by noise and dust
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, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. 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 city dwellers.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County 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.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31031
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Mr James Royston
I wish to OBJECT to proposed site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabius. Council,s own assessment identifies that this site is most damaging in operational phase and one of top three most damaging in long term. Location would impact on two SSSIs and five SINCs, one of which would be destroyed altogether, and would be very close to and area designated as ancient woodland. I understand that Natural England, RSPB and Notts Wildlife Trust has also objected for similar reasons. The Council has also not justified any "wholly exceptional reasons" as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
I wish to OBJECT to proposed site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabius. Council,s own assessment identifies that this site is most damaging in operational phase and one of top three most damaging in long term. Location would impact on two SSSIs and five SINCs, one of which would be destroyed altogether, and would be very close to and area designated as ancient woodland. I understand that Natural England, RSPB and Notts Wildlife Trust has also objected for similar reasons. The Council has also not justified any "wholly exceptional reasons" as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31032
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Mr Lewis McAulay
I OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis'. I Object on the basis that Barton / Mill Hill site evaluated as 3rd most environmentally damaging site in the long term of all those proposed in the county by the County Council's own Sustainability Assessment. Also the Negative effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away) and Holme Pit SSSI Site contains 5 SINCs. The site MP2s is also used regularly by many people within the local community.
I OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis'. I Object on the basis that Barton / Mill Hill site evaluated as 3rd most environmentally damaging site in the long term of all those proposed in the county by the County Council's own Sustainability Assessment. Also the Negative effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away) and Holme Pit SSSI Site contains 5 SINCs. The site MP2s is also used regularly by many people within the local community.