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

Dear sirs
I am writing to register my strong objection to the above site being included in the County's Mineral plans. My objections are summarised below:
1 destruction of wildlife habitat and environment - the proposed site is of huge importance to a wide variety of birds, bats and other wildlife. Nottingham Wildlife Trust and the RSPB have estimated the impact as catastrophic.

2 Impact on Attenborough Nature Reserve - this too has been estimated as catastrophic.

3 Infrastructure impact - as a regular user of Mill Hill round about I perceive the impact on 60 plus lorries per day to be both dangerous and impede traffic flow.

4 Residential impact to Lark Hill retirement village and areas of Clifton - the noise and dust impact are unthinkable.

I cannot see how proceeding with this plan is acceptable on any level.

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref Sand and Gravel Provision Site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.

This proposal on Green Belt land is the most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the NCC's own Sustainability Assessment. To destroy this beautiful valley and its wildlife would be an act of vandalism.
As a family we love to walk our dog and admire the scenery and enjoy the peace and tranquility of the valley. To have the quarry operating 11 hrs a day, 6 days a week causing dust and noise would be horrific. There are many horses in these fields and surely they would be adversely affected by the dust, as would the elderly residents at Lark Hill.

In the draft Minerals Local Plan the Council tries to justify including this site on the basis of'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore overrides the adverse impact on sustainability. However, the Council have admitted that there is no published data related to geographical spread.

There are no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. Therefore, the Council statement that Shelford or Coddington site are too big can't be justified.

The Council has a policy aim to 'prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge'. They have not allocated any sites which use this type of transport.

The loss of this countryside for 25 years damages the recreational opportunities and the health and well-being for Nottingham families for a generation.

Yours faithfully

MP2s sand and gravel provision
Dear sir I wish to object to the plan to extract gravel from Barton-in-fabis.
It is a very important area for wildlife, I enjoy visiting to watch birds there and Attenborugh which is only just the other side of the river, so feel it would be very wrong to go ahead with this plan.

Consultation on Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan:
Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Dear Sir / Madam

I wish to OBJECT to the above site and would like to detail my reasons below:

The site is in the Green Belt and the adjacent Clifton Woods is designated Ancient Woodland. This affords special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework - there are no 'wholly exceptional reasons' to flout this protected status. Our country, and indeed the entire world, suffers at the hands of authorities who do not consider the long term impact on the environment. Ancient Woodland is worth protecting. Please consider the impact.

Please also consider the impact on the Nature Reserves which are close to the area intended to be quarried. Attenborough and Holme Pit nature reserves support a huge variety of animal, bird and insect life along with important flora and fauna. There are several Wildlife Sites in the area, one of which will be completely destroyed by the proposed quarrying. Attenborough and Holme Pit are SSSI's - how can it be allowed that these will be threatened by the close proximity of the quarry?

Permitting quarrying in this area will massively deprive the community of a valuable amenity. The impact on walkers, cyclists, horse riders, bird watchers and many other leisure pursuits would be huge. There are few enough areas near to the city of Nottingham where the public can enjoy leisure time in this way that to destroy and deprive them of such a well used and loved area seems nonsensical. The government and local authorities bear the brunt of a failing NHS system and yet plan to deprive people from the local area, and a far wider community, of an area essential to health and well being.

There will be a major impact on the quality of life of local people. The noise, dust, increase in traffic and the visual blight on the landscape, along with lack of leisure spaces can only impact negatively on the physical and mental health of local people. I have health issues which are massively affected by environmental issues - this is why I choose to live where I do. Please reconsider this decision - these people chose to live in a tranquil area - if they wanted noise, stress and pollution they would seek it out, not choose the quiet of a traditional English village.

The road infrastructure is not ideal for such increased amounts of traffic - over a hundred extra lorry journeys passing through this area every day will have a huge impact on traffic and I believe will be a potential danger. The danger also proposed by operating machinery in close proximity to users of footpaths and bridleways has the potential to end in disaster.

I have concerns that the extension of the quarry in the future would have a permanent and drastic effect on this very rare area. The local villages and nature reserves are a beautifully unpoilt capsule of typical rural England, containing farms, thriving agriculture, offering fantastic leisure opportunities to the larger community. It is a gem, located close enough to the city as to be accessible by many and is enjoyed by all. Please let these beautiful, peaceful, historic communities continue to thrive in the way that they have for hundreds of years.

Be the ones who protect and make a difference - instead of the destroyers.

Thank you for taking the time to read my views, which I know are shared by many.

Yours Sincerely

Hello to whom it may concern,

I am writing an objection relating to sand and gravel provision 'MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis'.
I am so sad to be writing another objection when we all went through this last year. Is the hope that we will give up the fight to protect our landscape?

I've been reading Chris Packham's recent article about how to save our countryside and I really hope there is a chance here. The statistics show that Tawny Owl population is down by 37%, Linnet's down by 55%, Kingfishers down 17%, Lapwings down 64%...this is just a few of the species that I know reside in the proposed quarry area. Further species have also been spotted locally since the widening of the A453, the animals have already lost some habitat so are running out of space, where will they go if the quarry goes ahead?
This area is feeding ground to many of Attenborough Nature Reserve's wildlife and we have families of Barn Owls here too, and if they lose their habitat they don't choose another home, they just die out.
I appreciate that the redevelopment of the area will create another Attenborough Nature Reserve on this side of the river but I also know that the RSPB is concerned that then there will be too much man made ground for birds, which could impact the flight path of East Midlands Airport.

I haven't touched on the heavy dust and noise pollution that will affect many local residents 6 long days per week including bank holidays and the impact that destroying green belt land has on not only environment but human well being. How can we carve up the land this way? How is this ethical and legal when protecting the environment should be part of our duty for the future and our children's future and in the interests of those trying to improve their mental well being by being outdoors amongst nature, tackling obesity through exercising in such areas like this.

As a resident in the chalets in Trentside, I can see from the map of the proposed quarry that it will be so close to the river that it will undoubtedly impact the water course and I am concerned that our houses on Trentside and further down river will be at risk of flooding and impact our water supplies.

Please can you advise what will happen next, will my objection be counted? Will it make a difference, do the opinions and welfare of local residents matter? I sincerely hope so.

Thank you for considering my comments.

OBJECTION to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.
My objection is based on multiple issues that I feel have failed to be addressed or are misrepresented within this latest consultation exercise.

* The County Council's 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 on sustainability. However, the Council has stated that "there is no published data related to geographical spread".
* The County Council has an important role and responsibility for the physical and psychological well-being of its communities in partnership with the health and social care organisations that exist to respond to these demands when problems arise. Failure to act responsibly and objectively by truly recognising and acknowledging the benefits of local communities that provide a crucial urban-rural relationship will lead to significant detriment to local communities and wider society in years to come. This is a responsibility for planners and should not be shirked or dismissed by offering superficial arguments and weak evidence to support any preferred recommendations.
* 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. My understanding is that such sites exist and have been identified in previous iterations of this MLP exercise, but these sites have not been recommended in this version of the MLP for reasons that remain unclear or poorly argued.
* 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, which should reasonably be considered by those in authority within this MLP consultation exercise.
* 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. 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.
* My property is amongst the closest in the village to the proposed quarrying site and hence the noise, dust and visual disruption is of particular concern. In addition, there are already difficulties obtaining house insurance due to being in an established flood risk area. This proposal to permit extensive quarrying within 750m of my property is going to impact significantly in a negative manner to future insurance renewal requests. In turn this will also have a significant detrimental effect on my property value.



Yours sincerely,

OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Environmental damage
* Barton / Mill Hill site evaluated as 3rd most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county by County Council's own Sustainability Assessment
* Negative effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away) and Holme Pit SSSI. Site contains 5 SINCs (Sites of Important Nature Conservation)
* Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site
* Evidence that this site is rich in bird life and other species. 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species use the area for feeding and breeding
* Corn Buntings and Barn Owls breed here. Grass snakes, harvest mice also present
* Landscape damage
* The site is in the Green Belt
* Brandshill and Clifton Woods have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework
* Geographical spread / minerals planning
* Council have stated "there is no published data related to the geographical spread" and so their analysis and proposal is therefore flawed
* Arguments about Geographical Spread should NOT be used to justify allocating the most environmentally damaging sites
* There has been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. County Council comment that Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified
* What it means to you and your household personally
* Personal examples often have the most impact * Effect on the village and personal environment

* Generation of noise and dust from quarry operations
* Effect on quality of life, and on what is technically called 'visual amenity'. Impossible to mitigate effect of operations 11 hours a day
* Loss of important leisure area
* Site not fully restored and established for up to 25 years
* Loss of peace and tranquillity; area used for walking / fishing / horse riding / bird watching / photography
* Impact on local economy
* Bridleways / footpaths cross the site and would be diverted / closed. Impact on local businesses from reduction in passing trade from walkers, cyclists, horse riders
* Historical site damage
* Area rich in history with remains from Roman period, Iron and bronze age documented in the area
* Ridge and furrow field pattern from middle ages
* Adverse impact on Clifton Hall and Clifton Village Conservation Area
* Loss of agricultural land
* Additional costs from importing food / climate change
* Plans to restore site mainly to marshland and standing water
* Effect on grazing land especially on the respiratory health of horses
* Flood risk
* Already a flood risk area and can be difficult to get insurance
* Safety issues
* Deep water ponds a risk to children
* Plant and machinery close to bridleway and footpath
* Financial loss
* Planning blight / house price loss
* Sustainable transport
* Council has failed to follow its own policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not selecting Shelford where 40% of minerals would be transported by barge

Dear Sir/ Madame,
I'm writing to say that I object to gravel provision in this area. It will damage environment for local wildlife and create noise and disruption for people enjoying this beautiful area. Please reconsider.
Kind regards

I OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2 Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

I live in Barton in Fabis with my family, and I wanted to write to you to express my concern and distress at the prospect of the inclusion (and ultimately a quarry) of the Mill Hill
site.

we would be dramatically affected by the quarry. Our village is beautiful and peaceful.

My family is made up of myself, my husband, my two young children and our dog. We moved to the village in 3 years ago. We moved because we wanted to live in a safer and quieter area, and live somewhere where we were surrounded by fields and wildlife - Barton in Fabis was absolutely perfect.

We use the proposed site at least once a day, often two to three times. We take the boys down there and walk the dog. We love spotting different birds and seeing cows and horses. We have seen owls, mice and an otter. The river bank in the proposed area at dusk is absolutely teaming with all sorts of water birds. We have been noting what we see and when we get home, we google to identify and we're making a scrap book of all these animals and plants.

My husband read archaeology at university and when we walk across the field, he explains to us about the ridges in the field and that they have been there from the middle ages and they are there from when richer land owners used to rent ridges out to poorer people so that they could produce food or grains to eat or to sell.

The area is a really special place and the thought of it being destroyed is alarming and nonsensical. We understand these days how important it is to preserve areas full of wildlife, and the quarry will disturb and frighten away all the nature that's in the area of the proposed site. It does not make sense to build a quarry next to a site that has been identified as a very important place for wildlife and successfully nurtured and protected all these years.

Not only will the wildlife and fauna be destroyed, but the area will become unsafe for children because of increased vehicles. We won't be able to to walk in that area at all if a quarry is granted. And in fact, we would have to either drive or have a long walk (which couldn't be done by foot) in the other direction, to get to an area where we can enjoy the outdoors.

I'm also very concerned about the level of dust that will be in the environment we live in and that even by avoiding the quarry area for our walks, the dust levels will still be higher in our home and our garden. It is becoming increasingly understood just how damaging exposure to dust is for us and I don't want that for my family.

It's worth saying, though for me is not actually a priority over the affect on the environment, dust levels and safety, that the quarry will drastically affect house prices and the ability to sell our property. Something that wouldn't have mattered as we bought that home with the plan to grow and raise our family in that house until the kids are grown up, but with a quarry at the end of our road we will most definitely not want to stay there.

What's personally devastating is that we have saved very hard and taken on a significant financial burden to be able to move from the Meadows to somewhere a lot more expensive - but we were very driven to do that because living in a beautiful village like Barton is totally worth it, and we do absolutely adore it here - it has fundamentally changed our lives. But if the quarry went ahead we would lose tens of thousands of pounds off our house value and be back in a position where we need to move, but would have a much smaller budget. That scenario would be just horrific for our family.
I really appreciate your time in reading this, and I desperately hope that the decision is made that it would be wrong to include this site and then impose this quarry on such a wonderful village where we enjoy such a high quality of life.

Warm regards,

Objection to Sand and Gravel Provision 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'.

I would like to object to the proposal to extract sand and gravel in this area. This is an environmentally rich area, in the greenbelt, on the edge of a conservation area. There are 2 SSSIs and ancient woodland close by. The proposed works would destroy important habitat and have detrimental effects on the wildlife and local inhabitants in the surrounding areas. The noise and dust from the site would negatively impact local residents but the site is close enough to Nottingham to affect the air quality in the city.

This area represents an important leisure facility, within each reach of a busy city, which is well used by both locals and visitors. Our family has used this area each weekend for the last 39 years.

Please reconsider the inclusion of this site in the plans.

Regards

Hi there,
I would like to object to MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis sand and gravel provision.
If it goes ahead next year, the quarry will destroy 200 acres of wildlife habitat and feeding grounds for Attenborough Nature Reserve, ancient woodlands and spoil local natural landscape enjoyed by walkers, fishermen, cyclists and horseriders alike. If that's not enough, it will create heavy noise and dust across Clifton, Barton in Fabis areas and has the potential for local flooding. It will most certainly spoil walks along Attenborough Nature Reserve, with planned work continuing for approx 15-25 years. We regularly enjoy visiting the area to visit a local resident and cycling on the paths to and from the villages. We are concerned about the high levels of dust and noise and local residents health may be impacted by this. Please consider my objection.

Kind regards

Dear Sir
I wrote to you on the previous occasion objecting to the idea of taking gravel from the site MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis.

This is not only a beautiful area and an asset to everyone living in the vicinity, it is a a haven for wild life. The environmental damage caused by the proposed quarry would be enormous. My family and I have lived in Clifton Village for forty seven years and have enjoyed and loved this area of natural beauty and scientific interest. We would not want it destroyed for future generations.

The upheaval to the surrounding area that such a quarry would cause in terms of noise, mess, traffic congestion would be great.
At the previous enquiry, the travesty that the quantity of gravel available could well outstrip demand was suggested.

Worst of all though, is the fact that the new application is quite unnecessary when a more suitable site at Shelford is available for gravel extraction, a site with importantly sustainable transport.
The Barton sight was rejected after the previous assessment. A new criteria has now conveniently been found, regarding maintaining a spread of geographical sites, the inclusion of which would allow the council's Sustainability Assessment to be overruled.
I object most strongly to the plan and what looks rather like political manoeuvering.

am writing to object to the current draft of the Minerals Plan and the inclusion of the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis (MP2s) within it. Thus my comments relate particularly to question 11, but I also comment on the Plan as whole and the mechanism you use for public consultation.
1. The rationale underlying the sustainability assessment as it relates to sand and gravel is inadequate. The identification of geographical spread and sustainable transport as factors shaping the allocation of sites is poorly explained and poorly applied. Certainly identifying a spatially sustainable distribution of sites would include the analysis of proximity of resource to market, but it would also entail analysis of the environmental and social dimensions of sustainability to ensure that a balance between the three pillars of sustainability are considered adequately. The plan uses geographical location as an overriding factor and ignores the results of the county's own sustainability assessment for the sites. Not only does it allocate one of the most damaging sites to the plan (Mill Hill Barton in Fabis) on the grounds of size and location, but it also fails to apply the other characteristic identified in the options section, namely, sustainable transport. No consideration is given to the use of barge to transport sand and gravel and the advantages this would have in serving the market. The proposal at Shelford, for example, was found to be less damaging and had the advantage of barge transport. The sustainability appraisal is supposed to look at the relative merits and disadvantages of sites - since it does not properly do this, the current draft needs to be rejected.
2. The strategic objectives set for the plan are undermined by the allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis. Either the policies set out in the first part of the Draft Plan mean something or they are merely window dressing. I conclude the latter, because they are simply not used to guide the decision making. The allocation of the site at Mill Hill is contrary to almost all of the policy objectives. The ecological impact is significant, and the so-called biodiversity-led restoration plan provided by the promoters of this site fails to restore or compensate for what has been lost. Their claims by the promoter that the ecological impact is minor is completely unfounded, as is evidenced by the considerably body of information provided by other stakeholders in relation to the recent planning application for this site. The Plan also needs to use the recognised mitigation hierarchy in developing a sustainably sound strategy. In addition the impact on landscape and historic character is significant - and these cannot be restored. There is no attempt to deal with the issue of climate change and achieve any net gain in terms of future mitigation of flood risk. Finally, the impact of the processing plant on the green belt is considerable, not only in terms of its visual intrusion but also I terms of the wider social impact. It is within 200m of the retirement complex at Lark Hill and consequences for air quality and health are simply ignored.
I do acknowledge that the appraisal finds that the impact during the operation phase for Mill Hill is significant, although I suspect this and the assessment for the long term are underestimates. However, what I cannot understand is how, on the basis of this assessment, the site is allocated. There is no logic here. This is not an example of evidence-based planning
3. The public consultation methods used to gain feedback from stakeholders on the Draft Plan were also inadequate. The times of the exhibition were such that those working would find it hard to attend. More significantly, the on-line system used to collect comments was overly complex and poorly explained. There is no facility for commenting on the Plan as a whole; the responses are constrained around your question not the issues consultees want to highlight. The whole system is designed for your convenience and not ease of use by stakeholders.
I live in Barton in Fabis, in one of the houses within 250m of the boundary of the proposed site. I feel that the quality of my life will be eroded by this development. I will lose access to a tranquil and rich landscape, and industrial activity will intrude into an area with a strong rural character. However, I know I am not alone in this. Although much is made in the proposal for Mill Hill about its proximity to the village of Barton in Fabis, the site is equally close to Clifton where many more people live. It is important that the countryside on the edge of our large cities is conserved for the well-being of all who live near. The site is an important part of the City's green infrastructure, and this allocation fails to protect what is a significant environmental and social asset for Nottingham's inhabitants.
I am also an environmental professional and have experience in sustainability science. As a result I have seen a range of work of this kind, and am surprised by the poor quality of the current Draft Plan. The logic of the appraisal and the evidence on which it is based are simply not carried through to a rational conclusion. Rather, the allocation seems to be pre-determined and the material provided merely used to justify decisions about allocation that have already been made. Nothing has changed in environmental and social terms since the first draft of the Minerals Plan. Barton was rejected then and it should be so now. The danger here is that stakeholders will feel that the redrafting processes are not transparent and determined more by vested interests or political considerations than evidence. Evidence-based panning is supposed to overcome this. I therefore object to the conclusions and recommendations of the Minerals Plan as it relates to sand and gravel. It needs to be rethought.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to stress my strong objection to the sand and gravel quarry proposal which could be constructed approximately 1.5 miles from my home. I have strong concerns regarding the amount of dust produced by extraction of minerals as I am an Asthma sufferer. I'm also concerned about the potential increase in noise levels due to the close proximity of my home especially with the increase in HGV traffic. I am a regular visitor to the nature walks in this area and I'm concerned about the long term impact especially with the quarry being in operation for the next 12 to 15 years potentially.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing an objection relating to sand and gravel provision 'MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis'.

My cousin lives very close to here and the proposed quarry area is a beautiful place to visit and walk and explore. A place that provides a beautiful weekend haven away from the hustle and bustle of Prague where I currently live. It's sad to think it will no longer be possible to walk here and we will have to drive to another area, which in itself is bad for the environment. The proposed site is very close to her home as well as many other residents which is concerning from a health perspective, as there will be constant noise and dust polluting the area.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.

The County Council's 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 on sustainability. However, the Council has stated that "there is no published data related 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

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 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. 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.

I walk my dogs in this area and it's beautiful, nobody would benefit from it no longer being there!

OBJECTION TO POLICY MP2q - EXTENSION TO EAST LEAKE SAND AND GRAVEL QUARRY
I am writing to object to this specific part of the new draft minerals plan which is currently out for public consultation.
I do not believe that this proposed extension into Costock parish to the north of the existing quarry is acceptable or necessary and would be highly detrimental to what's left of the local rural landscape in this part of south Nottinghamshire.
This site occupies an area of rising ground and a prominent hill top, very unlike the more low-lying location of the existing quarry adjacent to the south around the old St.Peters churchyard, so quarrying here would have much more of a visual impact on the local scenery.
I am also particularly concerned about the potential loss of many mature trees and hedgerows from this site, including a strip of mature woodland, all covered by the shaded red clouring on the proposals map.
Of exceptional interest at this location are the Parish Boundary Hedgerows along the west, south and east of the site - historical and ecological evidence would suggest that these are highly likely to be surviving fragments of prehistoric woodland, being many thousands of years old and of just as much importance as any other ancient woodland left in the County.
(This part of Costock parish may well have been a surviving part of the original `wildwood' well into the Anglo-Saxon period but was converted to farmland by 1086, when (as recorded in the Domesday Book), together with the three neighbouring parishes of Rempstone, Wysall and Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, it was considered as a detached part of Broxtowe borough within Rushcliffe, leaving only these boundary hedgerows as relicts of the former woodland vegetation).
Even if they are retained around the boundary, any quarrying work here may have a highly detrimental effect on the long-term survival of these very ancient hedgerows, especially if there are major changes in the local hydrology caused by the excavations which leads to the drying out of the surrounding land.
As was originally feared by many local residents, the original small quarry established on the western part of the site some years ago has been continually extended so that it now covers a vast area of former open farmland all the way to the village of Rempstone.
I believe that this should be the final limit of sand and gravel quarrying at this location and that there are more than enough reserves here to last for many years in to the future, and that there should be no further extensions to the north of here into Costock once the existing quarry has been worked out.
Yours faithfully,

Dear Sirs
I am a Nottinghamshire author and journalist, as well as a home owner.
I oppose the proposed quarry for the reasons given below.
1. RECREATION AND SPIRITUAL GROWTH
We are all aware that the Barton Mill Hill Site is regarded as one of the most beautiful in Nottinghamshire for walkers, and that is much used by young families and the elderly who badly need this one escape left to them from the increasing overbuild of the land that was formerly accessible to them from Clifton Estate. As a grandmother, I am especially concerned by the creation of an area that will threaten the children who love this area. I don't know a single child, especially those from the city, who doesn't adore this walk, and develop from the experience of this contact with nature a responsibility and social awareness that is indescribably beneficial. To provide our families and the many tourists who know of this lovely area with a mere access route, through quarried, polluted land, is akin to robbing children of their childhood. Ask your councillors and local planning team. All will have benefitred from the pleasure of what they now propose to remove from our lives for a quarter of a century, at the least.
2. MORTALITY AND HEALTH ISSUES.
Horses, who are grazed on local fields in large numbers, and who form an important part of our village life and economy (riding schools) in the local area will have their lives shortened by sand dust. This is already of interest to the RSPCA, with whom discussions are taking place about it. There are no alternative areas.
More seriously still, sand dust severely impacts upon human health, particularly the vulnerable lungs of children. Cases for any damage to human and animal health from local sand quarrying will be vigorously pursued. We do have excellent legal connections in the area. I myself have strong connections to the law and the press and I will not hesitate to publicise such a wanton threat to life, both human and equestrian.
3. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
Historically, this is an outstanding stretch of landscape and river, dating back to the significant period when this stretch of river was used for saving the lives of priests who were shipped along to Clifton and beyond for safety. Any possibility of documentary programmes about this fascinating and increasingly discussed subject will be voided by the lost historic backdrop

Dear Sir / Madam

OBJECTION - Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision Site and inclusion of MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis

We are writing to object to the plans for a quarry at the above site.

We moved to Barton in Fabis 13 years ago, considering it to be the perfect place in which to raise a family, as it is so quiet and peaceful. We all enjoy the countryside around the village on a daily basis, walking, running, playing in the fields around the village and in the woods. We are very concerned that the proposed quarry will harm the environment in which we live, spoiling the peace and tranquillity of the countryside with constant noise from machinery and vehicles.

We are concerned that the quarry will be operational for up to 25 years as has been suggested. This will spoil the enjoyment of the local area for us, and for the next generation.

We are also concerned about the air quality in the village, as we have friends living in the village who suffer with respiratory problems. Will our air be full of dust, and what impact will this have on our health?

Our environment must already be more polluted than it was, since the opening of the new A453.

We believe the Council should reconsider the plan, based on the following:

1. The County Council's 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.

2. 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 related to the geographical spread".

3. 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 therefore cannot be justified.

4. 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.

5. The site would impact on two SSSIs at Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site and on five LWSs, one of which will be destroyed altogether.

6. Public Health England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for the site.

7. The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site have been designated as Ancient Woodland, giving them special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any "wholly exceptional reasons" required by the NPPF.

8. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, and visitors who come to the area for numerous activities including walking, cycling, horse-riding, metal detecting, bird-watching and fishing. We are very concerned that the proposed plans will spoil the peace, tranquillity and air quality of the village, and diminish the wildlife populations; a noisy and dusty environment will adversely affect the quality of life for us all.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to object to the inclusion of the Mill Hill site in the new Minerals Local Plan as referenced above on the following grounds:

I am very concerned about the generation of noise and dust which is almost certain to have an adverse impact on me and the enjoyment of my property and of Clifton Village and on the surrounding area in general. My family and I often use the footpaths and bridleways around Clifton Grove, Clifton Wood (which I understand has been designated as Ancient Woodland) and toward Barton in Fabis, and this quarry will have a major impact on the peace and tranquillity and therefore enjoyment of these areas. Residential and visual amenity must be a factor in any planning decision, particularly where this is clearly against the public interest.

It is also likely to have an adverse impact on my property price, living this close to a working quarry site that will be operational for up to 15 years and not fully restored and established for up to 25 years.

I also believe that the Mill Hill site was evaluated as the third most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county by NCC's own Sustainability Assessment, and indeed this site was rejected and excluded from the previous draft Minerals Local Plan. In addition, several bodies including Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and Natural England have already objected to a planning application for this site.

Also, I do not understand why Shelford site has been specifically excluded from consideration when apparently, 40% of minerals could be transported by barge from this site, which meets one of the policy aims of the council to 'prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge'.

Dear Sir / Madam

I am 7 years old, and love living next to the River Trent, because I love all the wildlife. The geese fly over the river from the nature reserve and sleep in the fields around Barton -in- Fabis. I like the Egyptian geese because they look odd... There are also owls and birds of prey like kestrels and sparrowhawks. I love butterflies, and when I walk and bicycle through the woods and fields around Mill Hill I see lots of them. It's my favourite place and I think lots of other people love it too. My friends all love it too...

PLEASE DO NOT BUILD A QUARRY HERE!!!

It will ruin it and all the animals and birds will have nowhere to eat or sleep. And also it will be bad for the Attenborough nature reserve which is amazing.



I strongly OBJECT to the proposed sand and gravel quarrying at this site, on the grounds that it would be extremely detrimental to a fascinating and unique wildlife environment.

I object to this proposed extraction site on the grounds below.

Environmental:
The current landscape is a mixture of highly valuable habitats which form part of the extended environment for the SSSI at Holme pit and the Attenborough nature reserve. The area is heavily used by rare birds as is evidenced by years' worth of birdwatching data and the destruction of the grasslands would have a massive negative effect on the local biodiversity. The activity of extraction would deter breeding birds and scare off migrating birds for years. Destroying this habitat would be a crime.

My family's health:
As a local resident, asthmatic and father to an asthmatic child, I am deeply concerned about the prospect of the impact on air quality. Air borne dust is a trigger for asthma attacks and it is an imposition to make parts of my own village and surroundings no go zones. How can I tell my son he can't visit friends who live on the edge of the proposed site for fear it will make him ill? This form of industrial extraction should take place away from populated areas, let us live in health in our own homes.

Loss of amenity;
As a keen walker, cyclist and bird watcher I object to the disruption to the footpath to Barton in Fabis and the inability to roam in an area I have enjoyed for nearly 5 decades. This is a quiet peaceful area, a haven from the city and this proposal would utterly destroy that.

In conclusion, this is just a ridiculous site to conduct this extraction. Our county is blessed with long rivers and many sites that can be used, which are away from our main towns and cities but would still help our local economy. The council has already made the right decision once, please send this proposal packing once and for all.

Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Dear Sir / Madam

I wish to OBJECT to the above site and would like to detail my reasons below:

The site is in the Green Belt and the adjacent Clifton Woods is designated Ancient Woodland. This affords special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework - there are no 'wholly exceptional reasons' to flout this protected status. Our country, and indeed the entire world, suffers at the hands of authorities who do not consider the long term impact on the environment. Ancient Woodland is worth protecting. Please consider the impact.

Please also consider the impact on the Nature Reserves which are close to the area intended to be quarried. Attenborough and Holme Pit nature reserves support a huge variety of animal, bird and insect life along with important flora and fauna. There are several Wildlife Sites in the area, one of which will be completely destroyed by the proposed quarrying. Attenborough and Holme Pit are SSSI's - how can it be allowed that these will be threatened by the close proximity of the quarry?

Permitting quarrying in this area will massively deprive the community of a valuable amenity. The impact on walkers, cyclists, horse riders, bird watchers and many other leisure pursuits would be huge. There are few enough areas near to the city of Nottingham where the public can enjoy leisure time in this way that to destroy and deprive them of such a well used and loved area seems nonsensical. The government and local authorities bear the brunt of a failing NHS system and yet plan to deprive people from the local area, and a far wider community, of an area essential to health and well being.

There will be a major impact on the quality of life of local people. The noise, dust, increase in traffic and the visual blight on the landscape, along with lack of leisure spaces can only impact negatively on the physical and mental health of local people. I have health issues which are massively affected by environmental issues - this is why I choose to live where I do. Please reconsider this decision - these people chose to live in a tranquil area - if they wanted noise, stress and pollution they would seek it out, not choose the quiet of a traditional English village.

The road infrastructure is not ideal for such increased amounts of traffic - over a hundred extra lorry journeys passing through this area every day will have a huge impact on traffic and I believe will be a potential danger. The danger also proposed by operating machinery in close proximity to users of footpaths and bridleways has the potential to end in disaster.

I have concerns that the extension of the quarry in the future would have a permanent and drastic effect on this very rare area. The local villages and nature reserves are a beautifully unpoilt capsule of typical rural England, containing farms, thriving agriculture, offering fantastic leisure opportunities to the larger community. It is a gem, located close enough to the city as to be accessible by many and is enjoyed by all. Please let these beautiful, peaceful, historic communities continue to thrive in the way that they have for hundreds of years.

Be the ones who protect and make a difference - instead of the destroyers.

Thank you for taking the time to read my views, which I know are shared by many.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
I writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.
There are a number of factors I wish to be taken into account:
* The County Councils own Sustainability Assessment shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and 3rd most damaging in the long term.
* The site would result in major impact on two SSSIs - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit which are close to the site and on five SINCs one of which will be destroyed altogether.
* Natural England, RSBP, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
* This 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, horse riding and other leisure pursuits. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottinghamshire damages recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and wellbeing of city dwellers
* The draft minerals local plan is unsound - as the council have sound to justify the inclusion of the site of the basis of maintaining geographical spread - over riding the adverse impact on sustainability. Whilst at the same time the council has said that there is no published data related to geographical spread
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different
supermarket areas. County Council comment that Shelford for Coddington sites are too big can not be justified
* The council has also failed to follow its own policy which is to prioritise site with
potential for transforming gravel by barge - it has not yet included site which use this mode of transport.

OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Environmental damage
* Barton / Mill Hill site evaluated as 3rd most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county by County Council's own Sustainability Assessment * Negative effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away) and Holme Pit SSSI. Site contains 5 SINCs (Sites of Important Nature Conservation) * Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site * Evidence that this site is rich in bird life and other species. 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species use the area for feeding and breeding * Corn Buntings and Barn Owls breed here. Grass snakes, harvest mice also present * Landscape damage * The site is in the Green Belt * Brandshill and Clifton Woods have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework * Geographical spread / minerals planning * Council have stated "there is no published data related to the geographical spread" and so their analysis and proposal is therefore flawed * Arguments about Geographical Spread should NOT be used to justify allocating the most environmentally damaging sites * There has been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. County Council comment that Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified * What it means to you and your household personally * Personal examples often have the most impact * Effect on the village and personal environment

* Generation of noise and dust from quarry operations * Effect on quality of life, and on what is technically called 'visual amenity'. Impossible to mitigate effect of operations 11 hours a day * Loss of important leisure area * Site not fully restored and established for up to 25 years * Loss of peace and tranquillity; area used for walking / fishing / horse riding / bird watching / photography * Impact on local economy * Bridleways / footpaths cross the site and would be diverted / closed. Impact on local businesses from reduction in passing trade from walkers, cyclists, horse riders * Historical site damage * Area rich in history with remains from Roman period, Iron and bronze age documented in the area * Ridge and furrow field pattern from middle ages * Adverse impact on Clifton Hall and Clifton Village Conservation Area * Loss of agricultural land * Additional costs from importing food / climate change * Plans to restore site mainly to marshland and standing water * Effect on grazing land especially on the respiratory health of horses * Flood risk * Already a flood risk area and can be difficult to get insurance * Safety issues * Deep water ponds a risk to children * Plant and machinery close to bridleway and footpath * Financial loss * Planning blight / house price loss * Sustainable transport * Council has failed to follow its own policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not selecting Shelford where 40% of minerals would be transported by barge

Dear Sir / Madam
I wish to strongly OBJECT to the proposed sand and gravel quarrying at this site, on the grounds that it would be extremely detrimental to a fascinating and unique wildlife environment. I travel up regularly from London to visit my relations and experience the wonderful natural habitat.
The site proposed sits in a delightful and unique position nestled as it is between the steep wooded bank of Brands Wood and the River Trent and wetland environment of Attenborough Nature Reserve.
It is a haven for wildlife. My sister lives on the opposite side of the river to Attenborough Nature Reserve, The calming nature of the pastureland, marshland and arable fields on this side of the river and the abundance of wildlife is something that should be preserved at all costs. Loss of this rich habitat, and the inevitable disruption caused, would have a devastating effect not only on the wildfowl using Attenborough, but on the many other species of birds and wildlife, including raptors and owls, some rare, that depend on this rich pastureland and marshes between the banks of the River Trent and the woods of Brands Hill.
My sister also rightly pointed out that the proposed site acts as a lung to Nottingham itself, an essential part of a green corridor that stretches north into the heart of the city, allowing residents not only from Barton, but from Clifton, Attenborough, Beeston, Silverdale and beyond to experience and enjoy the quiet yet spectacular scenery and its resident wildlife. it is its environmental contrast to the Attenborough Reserve and Brands Wood that makes it so valuable both to the diversity of flora and fauna experienced, but also as a marvellous leisure amenity to the built up urban environment of Nottingham and its suburbs. I myself use the bridleway into Nottingham to cycle to work, and walk the footpaths on a regular basis, so I appreciate, alongside many others, the value of this rural idyll so close to the city.
The local area has surely seen enough gravel extraction in recent years, and there must be far less sensitive sites that could be used than this one. With HS2 coming and the new mass housing scheme extension to Clifton that is being proposed, environmental pressure on the area will be intense, and such a precious jewel as this should be preserved and protected for future generations.
I am aware that there have been previous objections to the planning application ES:3712 for this site. I trust that these will be taken into consideration as well as any new ones like my own.
Yours sincerely

I am totally opposed to the proposed quarry on the land between Barton and Clifton next to the River Trent as it is in the Green Belt.
We are already having a lot of our Green spaces in Clifton destroyed by the building of 3000 houses on the Clifton Pastures site and the proposed building of 285 new houses on the Clifton West site which lies between Barton Green and Clifton Woods to the south of Yew Tree Grange. Soon there will be no green spaces left for future generations.
The proposed gravel and sand site near Barton in Fabis will almost certainly destroy the natural habitat of many birds and animals. Therefor also affecting Attenborough Nature Reserve. As food sources will be lost.
I personally use that area for Cycling. But many people use the site for horse riding, running and photography. Even if bridleways are diverted, horses will be still spooked by the noise and vibrations from all the machinery.
Another reason why I don't want the gravel and sand quarry is that my dad, my husband and many other people in Clifton, especially in Larkhill have COPD, Asthma and other lung related diseases which will be affected by dust blowing from the extraction site and processing plant towards Barton in Fabis and Clifton.
All so quarries are notorious for attracting kids, youths and young adults with nothing to do. I worry for the safety of the kids in Clifton and surrounding areas.
On a personally note, living in a large concrete/brick estate. It is lovely to escape to the quiet of the countryside and bridleways on our doorstep, not needing to drive. To get away from the stress, hustle and bustle of life, it's good for our health and mental well being. This will not be the case if this site is destroyed by the Gravel and Sand quarry. Having large lorries operating around the area, 6 days a week, 7am-6pm.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to confirm my objection to the above site.
Not only do I object, my family, friends and local villagers object, but it has been objected by Public Health England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and the County Council's 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 on sustainability. However, the Council has stated, "there is no published data related to geographical spread".
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarkets areas, so the County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big, therefore cannot be justified.
The council has failed to follow its 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.
I also would like to state the following points;
Effect on the village environment: This shall have an unimaginable impact on our village life. Our village is one of the few villages that still has a truly rural community, this pillaging of the land shall impact this village community possibly putting a stop to our annual 'Duck Race, on the river Trent, possible noise impacts to our many outdoor events and as chairman of the village hall, I know how difficult its been keeping our fund raising events going with the current A453 upgrade, so having a quarry in fields next to our events isn't going to improve our situation and this is just the village hall events, we also hold fund raising for our church which shall have the same impacts. Barton in Fabis is a quiet rural environment with a long history, its even said in 1646 Charles Stuart (King) crossed/forded the river Trent here and more that likely within these fields that are to be dug up. It can't be under estimated how integral this land and area is to our village.


Generation of noise and dust: There will be a considerable 'loss of amenity' and impact on quality of life to myself, villagers in Barton and the many other people who use this area for leisure pursuits, resulting from the quarrying operation, which is predicted to be 12 hours a day, 6 days a week on this site. No amount of mitigation and measures to limit the effects can overcome these effects.


Environmental / historical site damage: Development in this area would impact on two SSSI's (Attenborough Nature Reserve, the SSSI at Holme Pit), five LWSs (Local Widlife Sites) and Sites of Nature Conservation in the area of the site, one of which will be destroyed altogether. Any restoration will not restore the current range of biodiversity which is different from other worked out gravel pits in the area. The area is rich in history and archaeology and will be lost forever. The loss of this land shall result in a large decline in our wildlife land species and having more ponds/lakes isn't going to benefit the natural environment to this area. Also the site is within the 'Green Belt' area, with designated 'Ancient Woodland' (Brandshill & Clifton Woods), which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in which the Council has failed to justify any ' wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.


Loss of important leisure area: The area is a key area for walking/ fishing / horse riding and dog walking not only for those in the village, but for people from Nottingham City and wider Nottinghamshire. Ancient rights of way shall be lost forever.


Loss of agricultural land: The use of this site will result in the permanent loss of high grade ('best and most versatile') farm land adding to the nation's cost in terms of food imports. There are no plans to restore this land back to agricultural use.


Safety issues: Quarry workings will lead to deep water ponds close to the village which will present a real danger to people, especially inquisitive children, which no amount of safety precautions will avoid completely


Planning blight / financial loss: The existence of this quarry site will make it very difficult to sell and affect the price of houses in Barton and the proposed large planning development within the areas. The true financial cost of such a site is therefore borne by the local community.

Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.
The County Council's 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 on sustainability. However, the Council has stated that "there is no published data related 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
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 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. 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.

Having recently moved from Nottingham due to high density of student accommodation and related noise issues, we are very keen to avoid this beautiful part of nottinghamshire being blighted by such a development.
Yours sincerely,

Hello Sirs,
I am writing an objection relating to sand and gravel provision 'MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis'.

I am a regular visitor from Czech Republic to this area and am concerned about the devastating impact the proposed quarry will have on the landscape and it's habitat, as well as the noise and dust pollution that will impact many local residents, including people with health issues.

I enjoy walking and running in the area and all of the routes I usually pass through will be spoiled. Green areas like this are important for mental health too and it's a shame to see another part of the UK, which I believe is green belt land, destroyed.

Also, will there not be greater flood risks to it's local residents along Trentside chalets as well as further down the River Trent?