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

I am writing to OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision at site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
The reasons for my objection are threefold. First it seems unnecessary. Secondly, its location would appear to be detrimental to the human environment and is likely to create noise, dust and traffic problems and have adverse effects on the visual and social and leisure amenities of the locality. Thirdly, it is likely to have an adverse effect on the wider environment including the green belt, wildlife, the local woods, SSIs, Attenborough Nature Reserve. Our representatives really ought to be looking after the locality, preserving and developing our amenities not adding to their gradual loss.

I wish to object to Sand and Gravel Provision 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis on the basis of loss of well used bridleways and footpaths For example today, as I walked along from Barton to Wilford along the area affected I saw many people using the path, people of all age groups from young to old. People were using it for Jogging, dog walking, cycling, walkers and others who appeared to be just 'commuting' between villages. This area provides excellent health benefits, both physical and mental, to all who use it. This tranquil and beautiful setting cannot be replaced once lost.

Also 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 hope the council will reconsider developing this area as its loss would be irreplaceable. Redevelopment in the future would not recreate what has been lost

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.
Despite the County Council's own Sustainability Assessment showing that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operation phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term it has still included Barton Mill Hills.
The site would result in a major impact on two Sites of Special Scientific interested 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, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottingham Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for the site.
The site is in the Green Belt and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the, 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 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 tranquility in the 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 increasing 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 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. County Council comment that Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to "Priorities sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The council has shown disregard for its policies, environment, health and well being of its residence.

Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above application on the grounds that there is
no current requirement for additional quarry sites and the adverse environmental impact of this
proposal. The Barton/ Mill Hill site has been evaluated as the third most environmentally damaging site in the long term of all those proposed according to the County Council's own sustainability Assessment.
As a resident of Barton in Fabis I am concerned that the impact of the current application has not been fully considered. As someone who has actively chosen to live in a quiet rural location I feel this peace is under threat. I am not aware of the impact on resident's emotional and physical health having been considered. Planning around our built environment requires recognition of the determinants of good mental health that have universal benefits: access to green spaces, for example. Green space is beneficial for social cohesion through facilitating higher levels of social contact and social integration. The proposed development will cause significant loss of green space and impact residents and the wider community who access the area 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. 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 SINCs (Sites of Important Nature Conservation) one of which will be destroyed altogether. Clifton Woods will be negatively impacted and theses are designated as Ancient Woodland.

In terms of the impact on physical health the site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust. There is increasing evidence that environmental noise above a certain level can have a negative influence on your health. These effects can be physical, mental and possibly even disrupt children's learning. Airborne dust presents serious risks for human health. Dust particle size is a key determinant of potential hazard to human health. Particles larger than 10 靘 are not breathable, thus can only damage external organs - mostly causing skin and eye irritations, conjunctivitis and enhanced susceptibility to ocular infection. Inhalable particles, those smaller than 10 靘, often get trapped in the nose, mouth and upper respiratory tract, thus can be associated with respiratory disorders such as asthma, tracheitis, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis and silicosis. However, finer particles may penetrate the lower respiratory tract and enter the bloodstream, where they can affect all internal organs and be responsible for cardiovascular disorders.
Some infectious diseases can be transmitted by dust. Meningococcal meningitis, a bacterial infection of the thin tissue layer that surrounds the brain and spinal cord.
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 up to 25 years.

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 endangering of all sites in the operational phase and the third most damaging in the long term.

The Draft Minerals Local Olan 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 Shelton or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.

The Council has failed to follow it's policy aim to 'Priorities 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 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, Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special 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.

Yours sincerely,

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. We are concerned about the high levels of dust and noise and local residents health may be impacted by this. Please consider my objection.

Big objections OBJECT. Ref:sand and gravel provision site'MP2s Mill Hill Barton in Fabis.

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 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 SINCs (Sites of Important Nature Conservation) 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. As a member of the NWT I strongly object to any further incursions that will affect the wildlife of this area, wildlife that is in some instances on the amber or red lists of nature conservancy concern. This site is an area that is currently a natural wildlife corridor and its fields perfectly complement the habitat at Attenborough nature reserve. I do not want to see this valuable area destroyed.
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 exceedingly close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust. 19,000 people live within 1 kilometre of the site when the city residents are included. How is this better than the previously proposed site at Shelford? Why was this not more heavily publicised to city residents? A short display at the Clifton library, only publicised on your site is not good enough!
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 strongly object to the proposal as I suffer from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder. Any extra pollutants to the current air quality will only exacerbate my condition and those of the many other residents in the area who suffer from similar chest conditions. For my health reasons, I like to keep active by walking down to the river and along the footpath towards Barton. I object to the proposal as this would prevent me from continuing in this healthy activity, as the extraction site would appear to directly cut across the footpath that I and other residents regularly use.
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. County Council comment that 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 newly created dual carriageway, the A453, that is to be the proposed route for transportation has already become heavily congested at peak times. Apart from the environmentally damaging aspect of transporting material by many heavy lorries this will just add to the congestion.

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

Dear Sir/Madam

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

As per my original objection last year the site will cause immense environmental damage, including a negative effect on Attenborough Nature reserve and the rare bird species in this area.

It will cause untold damage to the Green Belt Landscape and the ancient woodland which has special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework.

It will have an adverse effect on the beautiful village I live in, including the generation of noise and dust from the quarry excavations.

We are already considered to be in a Flood Risk area, which impacts our insurance premiums, having the quarry would only increase this risk.

Lastly one of the reasons I moved to Barton was to have somewhere safe to ride bicycles, which having this quarry would mean I would be unable to ride safely anywhere around that area for some time to come.

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.

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to MP2s.

As per my original objection last year the site will cause immense environmental damage, including a negative effect on Attenborough Nature reserve and the rare bird species in this area.

It will cause untold damage to the Green Belt Landscape and the ancient woodland which has special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework.

It will have an adverse effect on the beautiful village I live in, including the generation of noise and dust from the quarry excavations.

We are already considered to be in a Flood Risk area, which impacts our insurance premiums, having the quarry would only increase this risk.

Lastly one of the reasons I moved to Barton was to have somewhere safe to ride horses, which having this quarry would mean I would be unable to ride safely anywhere around that area for some time to come.

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 a number of issues that in my opinion have either not been addressed or have been misrepresented in the latest consultation.

* 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 area is an already established flood risk area. This proposal to permit extensive quarrying within 700 to 900m of existing properties will have a significant detrimental effect on their value.
* The Council has publicly stated a policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" but have not allocated any sites which use this mode of transport. It is public knowledge that such sites exist and have been identified previously in this MLP exercise, but these sites have not been recommended in this version. To date no explanation of this omission has been given.
* 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 is a purely subjective point-of-view.
* 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 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" thereby over riding the adverse impact on sustainability. The Council are on record as having stated that "there is no published data relating to geographical spread".
* 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. 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 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.

I strongly wish to object to MPS2 for various profound reasons.

It would adversely affect the lives, health and livelihoods of so many people. The residents of Barton in Fabis, Barton Green and surrounding areas shouldn't have to be subject to the destruction and noise caused by such a devastating project.

The amount of dust created would seriously endanger the health of those suffering with respiratory disorders and lung decease, and ultimately could be life threatening! Particularly residents living at Lark Hill Village at Mill Hill or those living close by in areas of Barton Green and those living in Lilac Court retirement home, younger people and children with asma and serious allergies would also be affected.

Has anyone actually given any thought to this fact before submitting such proposals?

The community of residents living by the riverside known as 'The Creek' would suffer immense disturbance as such close proximity would literally be on their doorstep as there is only one field between them and the quarry and the processing plant on Brands hill is in clear view as it also would be clearly visible to all surrounding areas.
Burrows Farm (this is someone's home and livelihood!) would be severely affected as the plant would literally run alongside it and disturb prime grazing land.
The stables here are home to a large number of horses, cared for by their owners and turned out to pasture. This in itself is cause for great concern as horses are particularly prone to dust allergies or Recurrent Airway Obstruction(RAO). It is estimated that up to 50%of horses over 8years have some form of this respiratory disease .The common way to manage this is to turn them out into fields limiting exposure to hay spores. Therefore the high level of dust likely to be in the air and surrounding areas of the proposed quarry raises great concerns as it would be impossible to avoid dust exposure therefore significantly impacting on the health of horses grazing in this area and of those in fields of nearby stables.

I believe the proposed site would destroy one of the last remaining natural valleys of it's kind with historical value dating back to Roman times.
An area close to ancient woodlands and SSSI sights.
Home to some rare and protected species of flora and fauna and importantly home to a variety of wildlife. Badgers, Hares, Otters a variety of small mammals and the elusive Deer are a privilege to have been seen and enjoyed. There would be a devastating impact on their habitats!
The site hosts a number of resident red listed bird species which are of high conservation concern.

An area of outstanding natural beauty enjoyed by so many for so long from near and far.

The County Councils own assessment shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites why therefore are earlier objections ignored and for it to be put back in the plan?

We are supposed to protect and take care of our environment, to seek out 'green spaces' to improve our health, how therefore can this proposal possibly even be considered !!??

I am writing to confirm that i wish to OBJECT to MP2s.

The County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most endangering of all sites in the operational phase and the third 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 Shelton or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.

The Council has failed to follow it's policy aim to 'Priorities 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 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, Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special 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.

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 endangering of all sites in the operational phase and the third most damaging in the long term.

The Draft Minerals Local Olan 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 Shelton or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.

The Council has failed to follow it's policy aim to 'Priorities 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 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, Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special 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.

I would like to express my objection to the proposed sand and gravel provision nr barton in fabis
I have been coming to the area for many years from a child and do alot of fishing and walking there. It is so peaceful and the nature down there is phenomenal. You forget you are in a big city and is a great place for people to get out of the city and enjoy what the Attenborough nature reserve and river has become.
Having a quarry in that area would be absurd!!
The place would be destroyed for wildlife, atmosphere and the landscape ruined.
People will stop coming which will stop bringing money into the area and local businesses.
The dust, noise and look is not good for the area and I am sure there are many other places that are more suited and not right next to a nature reserve and in historical woodlands.

Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to file my objection to the proposed extraction works as indicated above.
I have lived in this area for nearly 55 years & have often enjoyed times down by the river in the Attenborough nature reserve, latterly now when taken by my son.
I enjoy the peace, wildlife & the beautiful natural surroundings that would inevitably be shattered by the proposed extraction works.
I also understand that the proposed extraction works area is within the Green Belt, & although I do not wish the works upon other residents affected by other proposed works within the county, they aren't so please leave this area unspoilt as what the Green Belt was designated for.
Thank you

This proposal is poorly thought through:
Just consider those who have made purchases in Barton on the assumption that there would be no mineral extraction. What is the point of listing areas where extraction can subject to Planning Permission be carried out only to change it?
In addition there are substantial reasons for Barton not to be included:
1. The impact on a superb SSI (Attenborough Reserve) which the mining operations and ancillary transport will have far into this precious environment beyond the actual site
2. The serious loss of amenity for walkers and equestrians
3. The impact on local residents of noise, dust and congestion. It is difficult to imagine any development which would have a more negative effect on their lifestyle

You are the custodian of our environment and you should act in a constructive way which reflects modern thinking in the age of the Encyclical Laudato Si and Blue Planet II and not return to the thinking of the Industrial Age

Object to Policy MP2 in particular the inclusion of the Barton in Fabis Mill Hill site (MP2s)
The inclusion of the Barton in Fabis (Mill Hill) site cannot be justified. The previous draft plan (which provided for significantly more sand and gravel extraction) rejected the site because it was one of the most environmentally damaging of those considered. Nothing has changed, and the Sustainability Assessment undertaken for this version confirms this. This version provides for a 14.8 million tonne shortfall, whereas the previous one made provision for 29.71 - twice the amount. It is unbelievable that when the need for new allocations has apparently halved, a site that was considered unsuitable previously when far more sand and gravel was planned for has now been included.
There has clearly been a fundamental change in approach, as the only reason that the Barton site has been selected is that the MPA has taken a particular view on geographic spread. The interim Sustainability Assessment (July 2018) states:
6.14 It was considered that attempting to score sites on the basis of transport distances for the minerals would be misleading as there is too great a degree of uncertainty involved, given that the mineral could be transported from any site to any market within an economic distance and that the locations of markets for any specific site are likely to change during the Plan period.
and
7.10 Twenty sand and gravel sites were assessed. It was found that those which scored most negatively in the operational period were Barton-in Fabis (Mill Hill), Cromwell Triangle & Carlton River Meadows, Great North Road North and Barnby Moor (Hanson)
In the Draft site selection methodology and assessment July 2018 the overriding comment is:
As a result of the above assessment, whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, these become slight negative impacts in the long term. Taking account of the contribution of this site to the provision of minerals in the Nottingham area, it is considered appropriate to include the proposal as an allocation in the Draft Minerals Plan.
In the same document, this comment is made about the Shelford site (which did not score nearly as unfavourably as the Barton in Fabis site)
There are relatively high landscape impacts and in assessment against sustainability appraisal objectives, the site scores moderately negatively during the operational phase and a slightly negative score in the long term. The site is located in the Nottingham area and in light of the number of sites submitted in the Nottingham area, and the need to maintain a geographical spread of sites across the County only a limited number of sites in the area are considered necessary. The size of this site is such that if it were allocated, provision would be limited in other parts of the County and this would not comply with the objective of maintaining a geographical spread of mineral sites across the County. As a result of the above and taking into account the assessment of other sites in the Nottingham area, it is not considered appropriate to include the proposal as an allocation in the Draft Minerals Plan
The Sustainability Assessment need not have been done, as despite the fact that it states that there is 'too great a degree of uncertainty on potential transport distances' and that 'the locations of markets for any specific site are likely to change', the site selection has decreed that Shelford is too big to serve the Nottingham market and that is therefore better to select a far more environmentally sensitive site at Barton. This is despite the fact that in the long term, the negative impact at Barton is -3 (very negative) and at Shelford it is only -1 (slightly negative). There is no evidence produced to justify the reasoning behind the MPA's decision to make the size of sites the main criterion for determining whether they are included in the plan.
The MPA has produced no evidence to justify its interpretation of the correct geographical spread (supply and demand for each sub area), and whilst I accept that there would be no sense in having all or most extraction confined to a limited geographic location, there is absolutely no justification for using this as the determining factor to override the Sustainability Assessment.
What the MPA was told by respondents at the Issues and Options stage appears under Policy MP2. I have underlined pertinent points
Responses were split between those who thought it was important to maintain a geographical spread of minerals. Reasoning given focuses on the need to minimise transportations distances, minimising environmental impacts, providing a steady and adequate supply of resources and ensuring that sites are located in relation to markets and demand (both within and outside the County).
* Other respondents thought that a geographical spread is just one factor that needs to be evaluated due to impacts on local residents, the availability of capacity on the highway network and the availability of recycled minerals in the main urban areas.
* Generally, respondents felt that prioritising specific geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, instead, each site should be judged on its own merits.
* Other suggestions included prioritising sites closest to the market, prioritising those with good transport links/access to barging or those that have the least impact on the local area.
* There was general agreement that the use of barges along the River Trent would provide a sustainable form of transport minimising minerals related HGV's. However there was an equal amount of concern regarding the actual financial viability of setting up the infrastructure needed for river barging particularly over a shorter distances.
The MPA has indeed judged each site on its merits, and then ignored the results. No proper account has been taken of the proposal to use barges for the Shelford site. There is no coherent argument to justify overriding the Sustainability Assessment results by use of a specious argument that because of the size of the Shelford site, the whole geographical distribution of extraction would be thrown out if it were to be selected.
An examination of the data from the draft plan and the LAA shows the following;
* Need to provide around 32mt sand and gravel;
* Around half of which to be exported to Y&H; and
* Around 56% of the house numbers in LA Plans is for the Nottingham area
To estimate how much is need for the Nottingham market the sum is easy enough:
* 32mt x 50% (16mt) is the total supply projected for Nottingham, of which:
* 16mt x 56% (9mt) is needed for the Nottingham market.
The allocated sites in the draft plan provide for about 6mt - a 25% shortfall. If Shelford and East Leake are chosen, then the supply for the Nottingham area is 9.5mt, almost a perfect match.
In planning terms, it is clearly nonsensical to state that Shelford should be excluded from the plan on grounds of geographical spread, unless the reason for using this as a criterion is actually to spread the extraction anywhere apart from Shelford, whereas the political drive is clear, and has been for some time, as illustrated by this quote from January 2016:
'The member for Shelford, Mrs Kay Cutts, questioned why and when a site at Barton in Fabis had been taken out of the plan and who had made that decision.
She said the Shelford site was productive farmland and important for both wildlife and historical reasons.
"This plan is not a good plan," she said.'
Unfortunately for Barton in Fabis, the member for Shelford became leader of the council shortly after making this statement and one of the new council's first decisions was to abandon the plan that included Shelford and come up with another that didn't. In fact, the Barton in Fabis site was never in the plan, it was only one of those being considered along with Shelford, but the analysis and consultation led to the decision that Shelford was preferable (which it clearly remains).
In the Report of the Corporate Director, Place to the Communities and Place Committee 19 July 2018, the comment is made that:
5. A small Member led working group was established at the outset of the development of the new minerals local plan. This working group has met at key stages to discuss the main issues as they have arisen and to provide a Member steer.
A FOI request asking for details of this group brought this response:

The Group does not make recommendations to feed into officer reports. Their role is to oversee progress on the work from officers and receive informal and often verbal reports on the emerging proposals. Members of the Working Group were however satisfied with the progress of the Plan and content that a Draft Plan should be presented to Communities and Place Committee.

What steer was given by the group is shrouded in mystery, as no minutes or notes were kept of their meetings with officers. Due to the lack of transparency, I can only assume that the leaders of the council's views were channelled to officers through this group and other channels.

There is no defensible planning reason for including the Barton in Fabis site, it has been chosen for purely political reasons and it should be withdrawn from the plan.

I would like to express my objection to the proposed sand and gravel provision near Barton in Fabis.
This would have 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 myself often travel from Derbyshire to visit the Attenborough Nature Reserve as it is a favourite place of mine.
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 believe there are other sites better suited to this type of operation, if indeed such a need exists.

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.
Public Health England, 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.

Reference: Objection to Sand & Gravel Provision MP25 Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis.

Dear Sir/Madam

We am writing to confirm that we wish to Object to the above application on the grounds that there is no current requirement for additional quarry sites and the adverse environmental impact of this proposal.
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 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 involve recalculating future demand and independently comparing all potential sites together. This application seeks to get around this process.
The County Council's own assessment of the sustainability and environmental impact of this site resulted in its rejection and exclusion from the previous draft Minerals Local Plan.
* 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 SINCs (Sites of Important Nature Conservation) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
* The site is too close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
* There would be a major impact on the quality of health, 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.
* We are told time after time about preserving our environment, caring for it so wildlife can thrive and people can help and enjoy the great outdoors to be healthier. Our children are encouraged to care about their environment and places of beauty to preserve it so it is there for others to enjoy for years to come. All you want to do is TAKE IT AWAY!
* Access to the site no doubt will be the A453 which has been made safer. This will only add more unnecessary traffic to this road and also will make the road extremely dirty and noisy with 50 Lorries a day travelling to and from the site.

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 endangering of all sites in the operational phase and the third most damaging in the long term.

The Draft Minerals Local Olan 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 Shelton or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.

The Council has failed to follow it's policy aim to 'Priorities 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 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, Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special 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.

I would like to object to the MP2s Sand and Gravel Provision.
. it is an area full of wildlife therefore needs to be protected
.It is an area that I walk through regularly, I take my 4 year old grandchild to show him natural surroundings so that he can learn to appreciate nature.
. I also appreciate the fact that it is an area rich in history.
* the area will never recover from the impact, the wildlife will never return in my lifetime.
* As a person who has tried to preserve nature this project will undo everything that I have tried to do.
* I also feel very unhappy that having objected to it in the past it has re emerged.
* The village of Barton is very community orientated we appreciate the area where we live and would not be happy to see the impact of this proposal.
* At the moment we have in our local area Woodpeckers, Cuckoo, Owls, kingfisher, how amazing that I can show these to my grandson.

OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provisions inclusion of Site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton-in-Fabis.


I spend a lot of time visiting this lovely area. Please don't change it.

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.
Public Health England, 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.

Dear Sir / Madam

Re: OBJECT TO PLOICY M2 SAND AND GRAVEL PROVISION AND INCLUSION OF STATE MP2S MILL HILL NR BARTON IN FABIS

I am writing to object to the above site!
The councils own Sustainability Assessment shows that this site is the most damaging of all the sites in the operational phase and 3rd most damaging in the long term

The draft mineral 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 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 the and and gravel demand in different submarket areas. The County Councils statement that the Shelford or Coddington site are to big can not be justified.

The council has failed to follow its policy aim to "prioritise sites with the potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.

The site would impact two SSI's (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) 1 WHICH WOULD BE DESTROYED ALTOGETHER!

Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to the planning application for this site!

The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent site have been designated as ancient woodlands which have a special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The council has failed to justify any "wholly exceptional reasons required by 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 tranquility in the area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, bird watching, photography, horse riding and other leisure pursuits, including impact on grazing land and especially to th respiratory health of horses and humans. 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 suffer from asthma, it worries me that I will not be able to breath in my own home. That in the summer, when it is hot, I will not be able to sleep with the windows open to cool down due to the dust and noise. As such i won't sleep along with other villages. This would be damaging to the well being of all those living in the area.

Yours sincerely

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.
* 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.
* 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. 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.
* 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.
Yours sincerely,

OBJECT - 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.

The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have neem designated as Ancient Woodland

The Council has failed to follow its own policy 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 allocation of such a large development within the area is not sustainable considering other sufficient developments forthcoming including Fairham Pastures (3000+ housing, businesses and schools) Having such a large INDUSTRIAL development within a short radius of this development and the estate that already exists will have a major impact on a significant amount of people.

There have been no projections of sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas so the addition of a new site can also not be justified on grounds of environmental, physical and human mental wellbeing.