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

I WISH TO RAISE AN OBJECTION to the proposed plans for the following reasons :-
As a resident adjacent to the site it would have an impact on the resale value of our property.
We use the area for local exercise walking which would be lost and not be restored in its current form for generations to come.
The impact to the wildlife on the adjacent Attenborough Nature reserve would have significant nay devastating effect from loss of feeding area, dust, noise pollution and total loss of a number of wildlife species.
The noise and traffic impact on the daily life around our area would be extremely challenging
As residents we greatly value what the area has to visiting persons, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, fishermen etc which would be lost permanently.

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.

As a lifelong resident of Nottingham (76 years) I am extremely proud of my City and County. The improved A453 sweeping gracefully through green countryside provides a wonderful entrance to our lovely city. It saddens me to imagine that this would be cancelled out if visitors and investors were to be faced with noisy, ugly skyline development.

I OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
I would like to express my concern at the proposed quarry in Barton in Fabis.
I was a resident of the county for over 35 years and some of my children still live in Nottinghamshire. I am particularly concerned because my daughter and her family — husband, four-year-old boy and two-year-old infant — live on Chestnut Lane in Barton in Fabis.
My primary objections to the proposal are:
* The idyll that is Barton will be significantly damaged, destroying several of the features that make it so attractive for the residents:
o The site is in constant use by the villagers, my daughter walks her children and dog two or three times daily — this would be impossible with the reduction of amenity and accessibility and the movement of heavy transport;
o The movement of heavy vehicles will inevitably make the village a less safe place for pedestrians, particularly children, cyclists, horse riders and other road users in general. The death of any one of the villagers or visitors would put the commercial exploitation of the village's environment into a stark contrast with the human cost;
o Vehicular movement of HGV bulk carriers will inevitably increase airborne pollution, from dust generated by the rolling of large wheels on the trucks, dust from the material carried on those trucks and from the very large and powerful diesel engines required to drive them. We are aware of many of the impacts of such pollution, mainly as regards respiratory diseases; however, on an almost daily basis, we hear of yet more reasons why such pollution presents a hazard to health and well-being;
o It is ironic that, as we are banning lorries from our cities, we should be increasing their presence in a village like Barton;
o There will be significant degradation of wildlife, with large populations of birds including owls, birds of prey and many waterfowl with more than forty species on the red or amber lists indicating the threat of extinction or serious depletion. There is also a wide range of mammals including water voles, otters and bats — all of which are struggling to maintain seriously depleted numbers.
o The proposed quarry will also mean that the grazing for cattle and horses is considerably reduced. Whilst this will have specific consequences for their owners, their absence will diminish the rural nature of the village;
The proposal to replace the workings, in some twenty-five years, with wetlands and agricultural land is an attractive alternative to simply abandoning the worked-out quarry, there would still be a major impact on the village because of its fifteen-year quarrying life and the further time spent reversing the environmental damage. In addition to the dangers from the quarry and heavy transport, the deep-water lagoons would present a danger to younger people.
* The area proposed is opposite the Attenborough Nature Reserve and it is difficult to
see how the reserve, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, could be sufficiently
shielded from the consequences of the quarry's workings.
* The village has a history dating back over a millennium. Its story is told in the land —
I'm sure you're aware that the village's very name refers to the surrounding fields
and their crops — the quarry would destroy the historical record of Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman occupation as well as the medieval history that is preserved in the fields and woods around Barton in Fabis. The Green Belt covers the site and the ancient woodlands are marked for special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework.
* I am aware, from my conversations with my children and other residents, that the quarry would impact most severely on the younger people in the village and would serve as an incentive for them to leave and as a disincentive for other young people to move in. The result would be to reduce the village's current broad spectrum of residents, turning it in to a slowly decaying village of older people.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to express my views and I appreciate the efforts of the local authority to consult with concerned parties.

Hi,

I am contacting you to object to the 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 many. 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 which as a local resident I visit most days to walk my dog and am concerned about the high levels of dust and noise.

Please consider my objection.

Kind regards,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'. There are various reasons that inform this decision, as outlined below.

Impact on heritage assets
Quarrying the site would destroy the historical ridge and furrow field patterns that are known to date back to the middle ages. It is also well documented that remains from the Roman period and the Iron and Bronze ages have been discovered in the area and quarrying would destroy these. Furthermore, the proposed site is close to Clifton Hall and the Clifton Village Conservation area, which would both be adversely affected.

Environmental impact
In a previous draft of the minerals local plan (MLP), the County Council rejected the inclusion of the Mill Hill site for reasons including the environmental impact. This impact has not changed and the County Council's independent Sustainability Assessment, which assessed this site as being the 3rd most environmentally damaging site of those proposed, still stands. Arguments about allocating sites based on geographical spread cannot justify allocating the most environmentally damaging sites.

There will be a significant detrimental effect on the Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit, both of which are SSSIs. The site also contains 5 SINCs, one of which would be totally destroyed. The proposed site is particularly important for bird life as it is used for feeding and breeding by numerous endangered birds, of which 24 species are on the red list and 22 species are on the amber list. Specifically Barn Owls and Corn Buntings are known to breed here. The site has been deemed to be of 'County Importance' for both wintering birds and for invertebrates, the latter including endangered species such as the necklace ground beetle, which has been found in potentially sizeable populations. Grass snakes and harvest mice are also present at this site. This site is a biodiversity action plan habitat, habitats that are rapidly becoming scarce in the county.

Not surprisingly, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association, and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to planning applications for this site.

Noise, the village environment and Attenborough Nature Reserve
One of the reasons we moved to Barton-in-Fabis is because of the peace and tranquillity in this small rural community. This is also one of the charms that attracts numerous bird watches, cyclists, walkers, horse riders, photographers and other visitors not only to Barton-in-Fabis, but also to Attenborough Nature Reserve, which is across the river from the proposed site. The effect on Barton village and on Attenborough caused by noise and dust from quarry operations will have a significant negative impact on these otherwise tranquil rural locations. This aspect of the site will not be restored for another 25 years should the proposal go ahead. The loss of this area of countryside will have a huge effect on the recreational opportunities of many people. Furthermore, the effects of dust are of particular concern for the many elderly and very young members of Barton-in-Fabis, some of whom already have significant respiratory problems. As a father with a young child, I am also concerned about the safety of the young children in the village due to deep water, increased traffic, and heavy machinery close to the bridleway and footpath, which all pose a significant danger to children. This is a view that is shared by many parents in the village.

Traffic
The roundabout on the A453 by Fox Covert Lane just off Green Street has been poorly designed since visibility from Green Street towards traffic on the A453 heading into Nottingham, and vice versa, is significantly reduced by earthworks. The consequence of this has been numerous near misses when trying to join the A453 from Green Street. One such near miss would likely have been fatal had my wife (who was driving at the time) and another driver on the roundabout not done an emergency stop. There have also been numerous near misses when turning right from the A453 into Green Street and I now routinely expect drivers on the A453 not to slow sufficiently when approaching the roundabout, often causing me to have to sound my horn as a warning. It would just be a matter of time before the combination of significant quarry traffic with the dangerous driving experienced on this roundabout led to a serious collision. Moreover, any such collision would be made worse by the type of vehicles involved.

Additionally, I am concerned about the quarry traffic from the perspective of a cyclist since I cycle every working day on Green Street and down Fox Covert Lane (and back again) as part of my daily commute. At the moment this is a quiet road which is enjoyed by many cyclists and horse riders, whom I see regularly on this road. The introduction of industrial traffic would have a negative impact on the regular uses of this road.

Furthermore, the Council has a policy to "prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge". This would not happen at Mill Hill, but would be possible at Shelford, and so the Council has failed to follow its own policies by selecting the Mill Hill site ahead of Shelford.

Flooding
Every year it is a battle to get home insurance that covers the risk of flooding to the village of Barton-in-Fabis, and as a result insurance prices are high. A quarry would adversely affect the flood risk in the area and the Council Sustainability Appraisal has identified the potential flood risk as "very negative". I am concerned that the quarry might make home insurance too expensive or even impossible to obtain.

Perceived Abuse of Power
Many of the points I have raised were raised the last time this site was proposed and I find myself asking, "what has changed"? One obvious difference is the control of the council and it seems very dubious to me that the new leader of the council lives in the vicinity of the Shelford site, which has since been removed from the MLP.

Lack of expansion
Another supposed change is a reduction in the future demand for minerals. However, the latest demand figures have been based on the last ten years, but these include several years of recession since the financial crash in 2008. There have been no proper projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. Now that the economy is recovering some areas of the country have seen a rise in demand for minerals and it would not be unreasonable to expect demand to rise in Nottinghamshire in the near future. Having a large site in the MLP such as Shelford or Coddington would be beneficial since it would allow for rapid future expansion should the demand be greater than currently anticipated.

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

Dear Sir / Madam

We are frequent visitors to this area and appreciate the quiet and the nature. 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.

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. Living on the opposite side of the river to Attenborough Nature Reserve, I witness daily how essential the pastureland, marshland and arable fields on this side of the river and over to Brands Wood are to the abundant wildlife that uses the reserve. 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.

It should also be noted 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.

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 also find it rather disingenuous that all the previous objections made about the planning application ES:3712 for this site do not naturally get taken into account for the Mineral Plan consideration, as they are obviously still totally relevant.

To whom it may concern:

I have just heard the deeply distressing news that Notts County Council has plans to extend the current Mill Hill quarry area, which would devastate 200 acres of precious wildlife habitat, including feeding grounds for birds at the nearby Attenborough Nature Reserve - a truly nightmarish scenario.

I can hardly believe that this is even being considered, especially as respected organisations such as the Notts Wildlife Trust, RSPB, CPRE and the Ramblers Association have already strongly objected to it, and these people know what they are talking about.

I live in West Bridgford and go walking once or twice a year in this area, sometimes with two friends who suffer from depression and say that getting out and about in nature makes them feel a lot better. It's good for anyone's mental and physical well-being really. I wonder if the councillors planning such devastating changes have ever tried it and have any idea how important the natural world is for all of us.

I would urge them most strongly to respect animals, birds and the many human beings who would be adversely affected. Please, please do the right thing and abandon this terrible idea.

We hereby strongly oppose the proposal to quarry an area of outstanding natural beauty which benefits local residents physical and mental wellbeing. Please do not quarry this area which is home to many diverse species and animals.

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.
On a personal level my objections are several:
Both myself and my partner have chronic health conditions which are affected and exacerbated by pollution, noise and general disturbance.
I walk, bird watch and ride my horse in the area which was a main reason to move to a quiet traffic free area.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please can I register my serious concern at the proposals for this area. I have cycled there today and loved the peaceful environment, rich in wildlife. I believe the proposals for mineral extraction would seriously damage our precious wildlife heritage and should be resisted at all costs.

Further, living just the other side of the river and near Attenborough Nature Reserve, I am aware of the detrimental impact the proposals would have further afield.

Please can I encourage you to resist and drop these proposals in the interests of not only the local community but also so as to preserve our valued natural heritage for which we have a responsibility for future generations.

Thank you for reading this.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam

Sand and Gravel Provision Site MP2s Mill Hill near 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 taking our young grandchildren walking in this area and spotting the birds and wildlife and teaching them about nature. We 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

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

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.

I grew up close to this site and lived near it for over 20 years. It is inexplicable that such a lovely location has been selected for mineral extraction. It is a rare example of beautiful countryside which is close to the city and readily accessible by footpaths and bridleways. It needs to be preserved not destroyed.

Yours,

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

Good Morning,
I would like to object to MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis sand and gravel provision.
During construction the quarry will destroy over 200 acres of wildlife habitat and feeding grounds, greatly effecting Attenborough Nature Reserve and the animals dependant on it for their sustainability. Its a joy to live so near to the water way and woodland and destroy the local landscape enjoyed by so many people in the area. I moved to my current house because of the reserve and if this project goes ahead it will not only ruin my local natures playground, (the soul reason I moved to my current location) but will no doubt have an effect on the house prices as well, while we have to contend heavy noise and dust drifting and covering our properties. Attenborough is my playground, my run route and my bike to work, please don't take this away from me and my family we don't deserve too have the beauty ruined by the financial greed of a hand full of mercenary business men. I cannot stipulate enough my objection to this project and will be happy to argue me to any point in person.

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.

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. 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. The dust carried in the air will have and impact on respiratory health and the noise will ruin the enjoyment of our village as a whole.

The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Please acknowledge receipt of my objection.

Dear Sir / Madam,

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

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.

This proposal would devastate 79 hectares (200 acres) of prime wildlife habitat and feeding grounds for birds using Attenborough Nature Reserve.

The site hosts a numbers of resident red listed bird species that are of high conservation concern: Grey Partridge, Lesser-spotted Woodpecker, Skylark, Song Thrush, Marsh Tit, Starling, Linnet, Reed Bunting and many more farmland species that continue to be of urgent Conservation priority

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, cycling, bird watching and other leisure pursuits.

As a local yard owner and horse rider I am particularly concerned about the impact to the Bridleway network. We already have to use and cross busy local roads to join bridleways together and the bridleway that crosses the site would be diverted / closed or severely impacted upon, particularly where a conveyor and access road cross the bridleway near Burrows Farm. There is also a safety issue with plant and machinery working close to the bridleway.

So this would mean the loss of yet another bridleway in the dwindling local network with no access to the extensive trails to and around Clifton and beyond. Road access to Clifton is a dangerous and unfeasible option for horse riders with cars travelling with no consideration and at high speeds past riders using the local road network currently. We continually have to ask cars to slow down to pass us but are often ignored and increased use of the roads would result in injuries and deaths to both riders and motorists and local riders aren't prepared to risk their lives or those of their horses.

I am writing to object to the current draft of the Minerals Plan and the inclusions of the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis (MP2s) within it. As a professional geographer I find that the draft plan is poorly constructed and that the rationale underpinning it is severely flawed:
* The Plan places undue emphasis on geographical spread within the county as a factor in site allocation, and fails to apply the criterion of sustainable transport in allocating sites for sand and gravel extraction. Geographical location is only one factor that needs to be considered. The development of a sustainable spatial distribution means balancing geographical advantages against the impacts that development would have locally, to ensure that the least damaging sites are brought forward, and social and environmental assets are conserved. The current plan ignores the fact that the analysis provided in the supporting documents shows the damage associated with the Mill Hill site to be amongst the greatest of all those considered, and that there are other sites such as Shelford, with lesser damage and the advantages of sustainable transport via barge. The plan should be rejected because it fails to carry its own logic through to a coherent, evidence-based conclusion.
* Despite the emphasis on geographical spread in the Draft Plan, there is in fact no clear analysis of market geography. In fact, given the likely pattern of housing development more allocation is needed in the Nottingham area, and so the inclusion of a larger site in this area, such as Shelford, would be more appropriate. The lack of any proper geographical analysis in the plan undermines its overall credibility. The lack of any consideration of geographical factors alongside the other dimensions of sustainability suggests a poor understanding of what sustainable development, and the policies relating to it, actually imply.
* Setting these broad issues related to the construction of the plan aside, the allocation of Mill Hill is also in any case inappropriate because of the significant environmental impact it would have. The sensitivity of the site relative to others has been demonstrated in the supporting documents and it is likely that this analysis actually underestimate the true magnitude.
o The site contains or adjoins 12 sites designated for their ecological value. These include Attenborough Nature Reserve (SSSI) and Holme Pit (SSSI) both of which are of national importance. The 10 other sites designated of county importance, and of these 8 will be subject to major negative impact through damage and disturbance or habitat loss. The undesignated area of lowland wet grassland that is also present on the site has been flagged by the Local Biodiversity Action Plan as being a resource that is scarce in Nottinghamshire. The Action Plan states the objective that "through planning control or other land use consultation processes, allow no further loss of areas of lowland wet grassland habitat. The claims that there is only minor ecological impact made by the promoters their documentation are therefore misleading and wrong.
o Taken together the designated sites within the proposed site make up about 70% of the area, and so if this development went ahead it would have a significant impact on the green infrastructure and ecological networks in this part of the County. The site also complements the adjoining site of Attenborough and provides feeding and roosting grounds for the populations of a number of bird species that make the SSSI so important at the national scale. In addition the site is important because it makes up a significant part of the catchment that drains into the adjoining Holme Pit SSSI. Although the latter is outside the boundary of the proposed site the local drainage patterns mean that the workings are likely to place this nationally important site at risk by impacting water levels and water quality. The mitigation measures proposed during the lengthy operational phase are, on the basis of the plan provided, unlikely to afford the protection that is required.
o The ecological significance of the site relative to others in the County is shown by the records of species sightings for the area. Many of the birds and mammals which inhabit these areas are of local or national conservation concern and include a number of red list bird species. There are also populations of important amphibian and insect species on the site. The biodiversity resource in this area is an important asset of the County.
* The landscapes of the flood plan and Brandshill, where the Plant Site, will be located provide important views from the heavily used footpaths on the Attenborough side of the Trent. The screening proposed along the River to mitigate the impacts of noise, dust and light, and the visual intrusion will cut these views off and significantly impair the value of Attenborough as an amenity resource. The disruption to access, and more importantly the loss of tranquillity, resulting from the development would significantly devalue the area of the site and its surroundings on the Barton side of the River. The footpath along the foot of Brandshill Grasslands is heavily used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, and the noise and intrusion that will arise where it is proposed that the stock pile and conveyor are located will located will completely destroy the character of this locality. There are also health and safety issues at this point for horse riders. The paths here are not only used by people from Barton but also from the significant population of Clifton that lies to the north, above the site at this point. At a time when Government Policy seeks to improve the health of people by encouraging them to take more exercise, it would be counter-productive to undermine the quality of this important area of green infrastructure that is on so many people's doorsteps. The social cost of this development has been ignored by the proposers of this site and apparently the Draft Plan.
The Draft Minerals Plan falls short of the standard that one might justifiably expect of the Minerals Planning system, because it fails to apply its own policy goals and fails to base its recommendations on the results of its own analysis. I therefore object to the plan and the allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis within it.

I would like to object to the development of a sand and gravel quarry at Mill Hill near Barton-in-Fabis (MP2S).
My objection is based on, but not limited to, the following points:

1. Impact on the natural environment.

The site is an oasis of flora and fauna, containing species that are already under pressure from ever expanding human developments. Once it's gone it's gone. The type of habitat it would eventually become is already very well represented in the area and so would do little to support biodiversity. A quarry here has been mooted before, but assessment by the County Council showed that Barton-in-Fabis would have the worst impact on the environment of the four sites that were being considered, with a Sustainability Assessment Score of -12. I don't see how this could have changed.

2. Impact on the health and wellbeing of people in the surrounding rural and urban areas.

This area is a green lung for Nottingham, contributing very positively to the quality of life for those who live nearby, downwind and downriver. Not only would we lose these positive effects if the quarry went ahead, but those near it, downwind of it, and downriver of it (and those along the route that lorries or barges would take) would suffer many negative effects such as noise, dust and other airborne pollution, water pollution, and congestion.

The people who live near the proposed site have had many years of disruptive and stressful large-scale development now. The tram, the A453 dual carriageway, major changes to J24, and the East Midland Gateway rail freight terminal have all taken their toll. We have the Clifton Pastures development and HS2 looming, and I don't doubt that the closure and redevelopment of the Ratcliffe Power Station will bring renewed challenges. Haven't we suffered enough?

I often cycle past a very similar (though better sited) quarry. It appears to be well managed, with screening bunds and the like, but the pollution and noise from the neighbouring 6 lane motorway are nothing compared to the dust raised by the quarry's lorry movements. The dust can be choking. The roads nearby take a hammering too, the tarmac showing the signs, which brings me on to:

3. Infrastructure

I presume that the proposed egress route for lorries remains substantially the same as the last time a quarry here was proposed: Green Street to the Mill Hill roundabout. Traffic on the roundabout tends to cross the Green Street exit/entry at speeds that can make it difficult to join the roundabout here in a normal car, let alone a heavy lorry. The estimated 114 additional lorry movements, 57 of which will be heavily loaded, will increase the likelihood of serious accidents. If attempts are made to mitigate this, the main flow of traffic along the A453 is likely to be disrupted.

4. Loss of land for amenity/leisure.

The rights-of-way across this area are used for horse riding, dog walking, cycling, fishing, birdwatching and walking and form an important connection free of traffic, noise and human development, from the city to the countryside. Destroying these rights-of-way, or even just closing or displacing them for several years, isolates the city and severely cripples the freedom of everyone who enjoys areas like these.

5. Loss of picturesque landscape.

The proposed site is simply beautiful. A quarry will be a blight on the landscape for decades.

6. Thin end of the wedge - fear that further quarry developments would follow.

If this development went ahead, there would be little to protect the rest of the Trent valley from future quarry developments. A central idea in the proposal seems to be that the quarry would be redeveloped when quarrying operations have been completed. However, this is little consolation as developers would then have a foothold from which to extend the quarry, with far less scope for objections from the public, marooning Barton and other nearby villages in misery as the quarry relentlessly advances.

7. Significant impact on the security and finances of the families living in Barton-in-Fabis and nearby settlements.

It's all too easy to think of people who complain about the impact this will have on house prices as NIMBYs. However, it's the greedy landowners and developers who stand to gain from this, not local people who merely seek to protect their homes and the local environment from devastating losses and damage. They can't afford to commission expensive studies and surveys to support their case. Perhaps the applicant should be invited to fund an equivalent budget for studies commissioned by the SAVE campaign?

The subsequent redevelopment of the disused quarry is key to making the proposal seem less devastating, somehow altruistic. A marina seems to be highly likely and would be a huge money-spinner for those who own it - not altruistic in the least and unlikely to benefit local people. Incidentally, the river environment would also suffer if levels of boat traffic increased much beyond today's levels.

8. Pollution.

It's just sand and gravel, right? Wrong. Besides all the construction materials and chemicals that would be brought onto the site, the plastic detritus that accompanies almost any human activity, and the pollution from construction equipment and quarry vehicles, the sand and gravel itself may cause pollution as it is extracted, particularly if the site floods and silt is washed into the river. Operations may require vast quantities of water, fuel, and electricity, contributing to pollution more generally.

9. Loss of archaeology.

Flood plains are often rich in important archaeology, particularly so near to important historical settlements. A few token trenches are unlikely to reveal even a fraction of the archaeology in this vast area. It would take a herculean effort to thoroughly explore and excavate.

10. Loss of high quality agricultural land.

Q. Why do we supposedly need to have an ongoing production of raw materials for building new buildings and infrastructure? A. Because the human population is increasing. We already rely on intensive farming methods to fulfil our requirements for food. What's the point of infrastructure if half the population can't afford to eat? We need to maintain the land we have available for food production, especially agricultural land that is of high quality.

11. Flawed basis for the demand for sand and gravel.

Why does Nottinghamshire have an obligation to supply so much sand and gravel? It's because of the unquestioning belief in economic growth in government. Espousing continued, perpetual, relentless economic growth is naïve, incredibly irresponsible, and ultimately doomed to failure. Economic growth is unsustainable by definition. It's a great way for those in power to increase their power and for the wealthy to increase their wealth, but for living things in general, it's a disaster. Barton-in-Fabis is a terrible place to build a quarry, but we should go further than merely selecting alternative sites. We should push back on central government and demand a forward thinking, effective, and responsible economic policy based on consolidation and improvement rather than blindly, greedily pursuing growth.

The argument that we need vast quantities of sand and gravel for our roads and shopping centres, though obscene, is seductive to many, but it is also lazy. These materials, and the concrete they go into, have their place and can be the best option sometimes, but I can't help thinking that planners, architects, and civil engineers should be pursuing more imaginative alternatives where at all possible, minimising the demand for non-renewable materials. Sadly, it's too easy to specify concrete.


Those who stand to benefit will keep plugging away, sowing uncertainty and worry in those who care about this place every time they attempt to get approval for their plans. We've fought this off at least twice before - it doesn't seem fair that the spectre should keep returning. So, not only do I urge you to consider the points I have made and protect the site at Barton-in-Fabis from development, I also urge you to find a way to put the prospect of a quarry here permanently out of the question.

My objection related to MP2s sand and gravel proportions. I was walking along the Thames today and though what a wonderful tranquil place it is. Not to mention the oasis for wildlife it provides. Barton site was evaluated as the most environmentally damaging site of all the proposed ones so I think another less damaging site would be better. The Attenborough reserve would be disturbed as it is less than 100m away. Historical damage would also occur with Roman, iron and Bronze Age remains in the area. Please reconsider for a less environmentally damaging solution.

Dear Sirs,

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

I am amazed that following the rejection of the previous Application that the subject has been raised again.
I am reminded of other situations where an Authority will keep on having 'Consultations' or Referenda until they get the answer they want in order to further their own ends.
I, and others, will be watching the persons concerned with interest.

My feelings have not changed since my original objection and indeed, since that time I have had opportunity to discuss the general situation with other friends who live in the Soar Valley and also those who live near and are involved with the Attenborough Nature Reserve and Centre.
Their overwhelming opinion is that the area under consideration should not only be preserved for the reasons given in my previous objection, but it is also vital to the Attenborough Reserve - on which a large amount of money and time has been already spent - because it provides a 'marshalling area' and a 'buffer reserve' in support of the bird species and other wildlife on the reserve.

I am including below the text of my original objection:

"I repeat my objections made in 2014 to the previous application. My ID number was 3863, Comment number 25572.
This application seems to me to be driven more by private gain rather than commercial and practical necessity at the expense of the social amenity, the valuable very fertile agricultural land, and the quality of life of the village and local inhabitants and their environment which will be destroyed.
The nature of the local wildlife will be wrecked no matter what 'restoration' is suggested/promised(?). I am particularly worried about the 'particle drift' from the newly proposed washing and treatment plant and its effect on the grazing of livestock in the vicinity as well as the indigenous wildlife.
It appears to me that this application is being rushed through with insufficient notice being given in order to suppress objection and full debate. I wonder why? I am very suspicious, and I will be following the actions of certain people and parties with interest.
I do not live in the immediate area, but I have known the area for over 40 years through friends and one particular farming family, and I am appalled that the despoiling of this irreplaceable asset to the County was even allowed to be proposed in the first place, let alone be resurrected in this suspicious, hasty and unseemly manner. I don't care what the so-called 'experts' say or 'promise', they all seem to me to have some sort of axe to grind for their own private agenda. We have seen it all before with disastrous results.
When the natural environment has been destroyed, it's GONE, and can never be replaced. We should be PRESERVING what remains of our natural assets, not squandering them unnecessarily for dubiously required short term selfish gain at the expense of the people and animals that actually live in the affected area.
I fervently hope and pray that this Application is refused, and should never be raised again."

I repeat the sentiments expressed in the last sentence, and trust that common sense will prevail and that this Application will again be rejected and never raised again.

Dear Sir / Madam
I am writing to register my objection to sand and gravel extraction near Barton in fabis.
My daughter and myself regularly enjoy walking and cycling in the area around Brandshill and Clifton woods. The fields and woods are full of wildlife and there is a great sense of tranquility and calm, despite being so close to the city. It is a much needed asset to the local area, especially when there will be another 3,000 houses south of Clifton soon. I'm sure it will be a big mistake to loose it.

Dear Sir or Madam

I wish to object to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'. My concerns include the following:

Impact on Heritage Assets

Heritage assets include the historical ridge and furrow field patterns dating back to the middle ages, and remains from the Roman period and the Iron and Bronze ages in the area. The proposed site is also close to Clifton Hall and Clifton Village Conservation area, which would be adversely affected.

Environmental Impact

In a previous draft of the Minerals Local Plan the County Council rejected the inclusion of the Mill Hill site for reasons which included the environmental impact. The County Council's independent Sustainability Assessment gave the assessment that this site is the third most environmentally damaging site of those proposed.

There would be a significant detrimental effect on the Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit, both SSSIs. There are concerns about the threat to numerous endangered species of birds and various invertebrates.

I understand that Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have all objected to planning applications for this site.

Noise, Village Environment and Attenborough Nature Reserve

The village of Barton in Fabis and Attenborough Nature Reserve would be adversely affected by noise and dust pollution. I have family living in Barton in Fabis which is a quiet and peaceful rural community for the residents and visitors. As a grandparent of a small child growing up in the village, I am particularly concerned about the impact of dust from the quarry, especially for the elderly and the very young, and anyone with respiratory problems. There is also the potential danger from deep water, increased traffic and heavy machinery near to the bridleway and footpath.

Traffic

Green Lane and Fox Covert Lane are used by many cyclists and horse riders. The introduction of industrial traffic would have a negative impact on what is currently a quiet route.

There have been a number of 'near misses' near to the roundabout on the A453 by Fox Covert Lane just off Green Street, involving traffic trying to join the A453 from Green Street, and by traffic turning right from the A453 into Green Street. The risk of a serious or even fatal accident would be increased by the additional quarry traffic.

Flooding

The Council Sustainability Appraisal has identified the potential flood risk as 'very negative'.

There are, therefore, numerous reasons why this proposal should not go ahead, including the detrimental impact on the environment as identified in the County Council's Independent Sustainability Assessment and the potential flood risk as noted in the Council Sustainability Appraisal.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to OBJECT to the above site for the reasons listed below as well as the following:
I have lived in Nottingham the last 10 years and a year and a half ago I moved into the village of Thrumpton. Thrumpton is located within a conservation area as it is an area of outstanding natural beauty and part of our cultural heritage. I believe the area around Barton in Fabis is equally as important and beautiful. Mining this area would inevitably lead to a loss of countryside as the land is located on a flood plane.
I have visited this area over the years as it is located just outside of Nottingham and is easily accessible. A quarry and all of it's associated traffic, dust and noise would ruin this important part of our greenbelt. Indeed the whole idea of greenbelt land was created to protect areas such as this.
I understand there is a national demand for housing but this does not mean we have to quarry our valuable and limited greenbelt in order to build these homes. Cheaper sand and gravel just means more profit for already wealthy property companies. Given the high price of properties currently, saving a small amount of the price of sand and gravel should not be required in order to make it economically viable to build these homes.
Great Britain is already an overcrowded country and losing any amount of land permanantly, especially stunning greenbelt land on the doorstep of an upcoming housing development should be strongly avoided!
Please also take into consideration the physical and mental health of the people of Barton in Fabis. The threat of an impending change to their way of life has to be causing signifanct psychological stress. Also the noise, air and light pollution from a quarry would also have a severe impact upon these villagers and potentially people in the surrounding villages. Namely loss of sleep and respiratory disorders due to the increased air pollution.
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 object to the above site.Your own sustainability assessment shows this is the most damaging of sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term. What are you thinking of?
You say you are "maintaining geographical spread" and yet you also state "there is no published data related to geographical spread" - do you know what you are doing!
There are no projections for sand and gravel demand so how can you discount other sites as being too big?!?
You haven't, as you said you would, prioritised sites that can use barges - come on?!
The Barton site would impact two SSSIs and destroy one LWS altogether! Get real.
The site is in the green belt and is adjacent to ancient woodland - and where are the exceptional reasons you need to justify this! Go on, where are they?
You would wipe out a large area of beautiful countryside close to the city and just expand the conurbation, what a travesty. Come to your senses please. I know where you live....

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.
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.
Regards

OBJECTION Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision Site and inclusion of '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 (MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis) is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term. Why would the County Council pick a site that by it's own investigations is one of the least attractive options? Why carry out the Sustainability assessment if you are only going to ignore its findings?

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". Again the justification for the inclusion of this site seems to be at odds to the Councils own findings. Why is the Council repeatedly ignoring its own advice? It's seems that there are factions within the Council that are 'at war' with each other? Surely the function of the Council is for the betterment of the electorate and the county at large, not a cauldron of in-fighting?

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. This seems completely non-nonsensical to me. It is like saying that a whole cake is too big to eat! You can just take a slice of the cake, you do not need to eat it all at once. The sites at Shelford or Coddington could be started small and then expanded, if necessary. Surely there is no such thing as too big if the sites have not yet begun?

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. From the work done by the Council on the previous Draft Minerals Plan, the only site highlighted as a potential for resource removal by barge was Shelford. If there is a desire, on the very sensible grounds of sustainable transport, to have the resources removed by barge, surely Shelford must be included in the proposal. Yet again we see the Council ignoring its own advice!

The site would impact on two SSSls (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. With an objective of the council to be sustainable and ecologically responsible it seems reckless that they are planning on carving up the countryside and destroying these nationally designated important and beautiful sites.

Public Health England RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site. Surely it is also a responsibility of the Council to take note of the advice of these important national bodies. Choosing to ignore the advice of these organisations makes the Council look like it does not care about the advice of others.

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. Once again, the Council seems to be ignoring not only its own advice but the various national frameworks under which it is bound. It would appear that the Council has made a unilateral, unsound decision and is ignoring its legal obligations.

There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people. There will be high levels of dust and noise adjacent to a highly populated area, including a local retirement village full of residents with possible respiratory problems, 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 and other wildlife. 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,

OBJECT to Sand and Gravel Provision MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis

I have been recording the status of birds in the Barton in Fabis, Clifton Grove and Thrumpton areas since 1996 and on a regular basis since 2000.
I have spent on average 14hrs a week for twelve months of the year for the last 21yrs recording individual species that have all been submitted to the county recorder of Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers.
When submitting monthly records to the county recorder of the Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers grid references have never been submitted as they are not a requirement by the society, although these can all be submitted later if at all required.

The proposed gravel extraction plan would affect a number of resident, breeding and wintering species that can be found in the area.
This is my account of what species are found and will be affected in the area of the proposed sand and gravel plan.


Recording area names explained

Site names where I have seen each species are logged as areas that are known locally for example Brandshill, Barton Moor, Barton riverside fields etc. These names are explained in the recording area section below, as I gather there is some confusion as to the areas where I have recorded certain species.

The area of the proposed gravel extraction is in an area I visit on a daily basis, although the names of certain sites within the area that I use when recording my sightings are names that are known locally.
I will therefore try to explain these site names here:
Brandshill - Brandshill Grasslands.
Brandshill Moor - The large area opposite Brandshill Wood.
Brandshill Ponds - Borrowers Pits
Barton riverside fields - the field next to the river either side of the bridlepath from Chestnut Lane.
The Rough Wood - Woodland directly below Burrows Farm.
Rough Wood hedgerow - The hedgerow that runs with the footpath from Fox Covert. Lane to Brandshill Wood, much of which forms te western boundary to Brandshill Grassland.
Burrows Farm - Marshalls.
David's Lane - Fox Covert Lane.
Yellow Gate Pond - The small pond by the yellow security gate along Fox Covert Lane.

Resident, Breeding and Wintering species

The following is a summary of some of the more notable resident, breeding and wintering species which will potentially be affected by the proposed works, and not a complete list of species that i have found and recorded here.

Resident species of site importance

Grey Partridge Perdix perdix
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis
Little Egret Egretta garzetta
Water Rail Railus aquaticus
Lapwing Vanellus vanellus
Stock Dove Columba oenas
Barn Owl Tyto alba
Little Owl Athene noctua
Tawny Owl Strix alucorey
Long-eared Owl Asio otus
Kingfisher Alcedo atthis
Green Woodpecker Picus viridis
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos minor
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Raven Corvus corax
Marsh Tit Poecile palustris
Skylark Alauda arvensis
Starling Sturnus vulgaris
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Tree Sparrow Passer montanus
Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea
Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula
Linnet Linaria cannabina
Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella
Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus


Breeding Species that have regularly bred/signs of breeding on more than one occasion in the last 5 years

Grey Partridge Perdix perdix
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis
Water Rail Railus aquaticus
Lapwing Vanellus vanellus
Stock Dove Columba oenas
Cuckoo Cuculus canonus
Barn Owl Tyto alba
Little Owl Athene noctua
Tawny Owl Strix alucorey
Long-eared Owl Asio otus
Kingfisher Alcedo atthis
Green Woodpecker Picus viridis
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos minor
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus
Raven Corvus corax
Marsh Tit Poecile palustris
Skylark Alauda arvensis
Sand Martin Riparia riparia
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus
Garden Warbler Sylvia borin
Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca
Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia
Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus
Cetti's Warbler Cettia cetti
Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus
Song Thrush Turdus philomelos
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Tree Sparrow Passer montanus
Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava
Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea
Linnet Linaria cannabina
Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella
Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus


Grey Partridge Perdix perdix is a declining farmland species that find the area particularly attractive and breed in small numbers. Areas they favour for breeding are the undisturbed area of the Brandshill grasslands. Over the last five years I have regularly observed grey partridge displaying at the top of Brandshill Grassland on its eastern boundary. There is also suitable breeding/nesting habitat at the base of the hedgerows surrounding the field. I have also noted that the numbers of grey partridge have significantly increased in this, and the surrounding area. As the species is not reared and released for shooting, this increase in numbers indicates they are breeding successfully. This species would suffer severely from disturbance by the proposed plan on the Brandshill grasslands.

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis A pair have regularly bred at Branshill Ponds [Barton Borrow Pits] over the last ten years and I have observed both their nests and the adults with young.

Water Rail Railus aquaticus Have been observed and heard at Branshill Ponds [Barton Borrow Pits], they can often be heard them calling during the breeding season, although I cannot confirm breeding as they are such a shy and secretive species. From my observations I would describe the habitat around this pond as optimal for these species.

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus is another declining farmland breeding species that breeds in good numbers and would suffer severely from disturbance.

Cuckoo Cuculus canonus As dunnock is a favoured host species of cuckoo, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that the cuckoos on the Barton site are using the nests of this species for egg laying. Singing male dunnocks were recorded in all three breeding bird surveys: two on 14/4/15, four on 12/5/15 and five on 3/6/15. As all were observed in or close to suitable breeding habitat, I think it reasonable to believe that cuckoos were using the nests of dunnocks as a host for egg laying. Juveniles have been seen in the area with the most recent recorded 13/8/17 sat on a post at the base of Brandshill Grassland which then flew along the hedge in the direction of Brandshill Wood.
Barn Owl Tyto alba, Little Owl Athene noctua, Tawny Owl Strix alucorey and Long-eared Owl Asio otus have all bred in the area in recent years.
Barn Owl Tyto alba and Little Owl Athene noctua have both been helped by erecting nestboxes throughout the area. Two nestboxes for both Barn Owl Tyto alba and Little Owl Athene noctua are currently within or adjoining the proposed gravel plan area, with all four nestboxes annually fledging a number of young owlets.

Tawny Owl Strix alucorey are without doubt breeding in Brandshill Wood with pairs heard calling regularly throughout the breeding season. Newly fledged Tawny Owl chicks have also been seen in the area of Barton Flash so they must have bred in the vicinity.

Long-eared Owl Asio otus is without doubt the rarest and hardest species of owl to find in the area. I have only seen single birds on two occasions in the breeding season, although the "squeaky gate" calls of young owls have been heard on one occasion June 2006 from Brandshill Wood proving that this species has bred in the area.

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis breed annually in the river banks in front of Barton Island.

Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos minor is a still hanging on as a breeding species in the area. Although nests have never been found males have been seen displaying and calling for females on the edge of Brandshill Wood and from the large Oak below the Brandshill Grasslands.

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus is another declining species that breeds in small numbers, with a recent pair fledging five young this year from one of the Barn Owl Tyto alba boxes.

Raven Corvus corax successfully bred for the first time this year in Brandshill Wood, fledging five juveniles. Raven first started to colonise the area in September 2011 with sightings becoming more regular in 2012/13. By 2015 ravens had become an established resident in the area, and were seen or heard on almost every visit. Breeding was first confirmed in 2017, although pairs had been seen displaying during previous years and breeding was suspected.

Marsh Tit Poecile palustris This species has never been numerous in the area and numbers have declined over the last 10 years. Breeding has never been proven but foraging birds in the breeding season have been noted in the wet woodland areas collecting insects. These areas include the ditch that runs below the Rough Wood, the trees growing up around the footpath adjacent to the hedge at the base of Brandshill Grassland G9 and T92 and the willows on the edge of Barton Flash. Winter records for marsh tits are slightly more widespread than those for the breeding season, partly because they are easier to see when there is no foliage on the trees. Marsh tit would suffer severely as many of their preferred foraging sites in the breeding season are within the survey area.

Skylark Alauda arvensis breeds in good numbers throughout the application site.

Sand Martin Riparia riparia regulary breed in a small colony on in the river bank facing Barton Island.

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica will breed in any suitable out building and regularly breed in the stables of Burrows Farm.

Phylloscopus, Sylvia, Locustella and Acrocephalus Warblers breed in good numbers below the Brandshill grasslands, Brandshill Ponds, Holme Pit and any others suitable habitats in the area.

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos is a declining species nationwide but still breeds here in good numbers particularly in the Barton Flash and Rough Wood/Brandshill grasslands area

Tree Sparrow Passer montanus favour areas with scattered trees for breeding rather than woodland as stated. It is a species that has been helped to breed in the area by erecting suitable nest boxes. In October 2006 I placed a number of nest-boxes in suitable locations to try and tempt pairs to breed. Success was achieved in the first season with five nest-boxes occupied and several pairs having second broods. Two such nest boxes are on the survey site situated close to Barton Flash and tree sparrows have bred in these boxes every year since 2006.
In the winter months Tree Sparrow gather in mixed bunting and finch flocks to feed on the many seed heads and the stubble fields within the survey area.

House Sparrow Passer domesticus nests every year in the barns and sheds of Burrows Farm which is very close to the site boundary. I have regularly observed house sparrows using the habitat within the site to forage for insects during the breeding season. I have also observed them in mixed flocks of finches and buntings, foraging among suitable habitat within the site during the winter.

Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava favours oil seed rape and cereal crops for breeding, and has bred in abundance when these crops are planted.

Linnet Linaria cannabina, Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella find the areas of the Brandshill grasslands, Barton Flash and the many drainage dykes very favourable for breeding

Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus breeds annually around Barton Flash and Brandshill Ponds with singing males noted in several territorys.



Regular winter visitors/increases of species populations

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus
Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus
White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons
Gadwall Anus stepera
Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope
Eurasian Teal Anus crecca
Shoveler Anus clypeata
Common Pochard Aythya ferina
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula
Goosander Mergus merganser
Bittern Botaurus stellaris
Merlin Falco columbarius
Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria
Lapwing Vanellus vanellus
Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago
Woodcock Scolopax rusticola
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
Skylark Alauda arvensis
Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis
Stonechat Saxicola torquata
Fieldfare Turdus pilaris
Redwing Turdus iliacus
Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Siskin Carduelis spinus
Linnet Linaria cannabina

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus, Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus and White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons are regular winter visitors that fly over the site although small numbers of these species regularly stop over at the site to feed on the various crops and grassy fields.
Small numbers of these species stay in the area for the winter attracted by a good food supply and safety within the large numbers of wintering feral geese and herds of Mute Swan Cygnus olor.

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope are also regular visitors to the area grazing on the grassy fields by Barton Island and the riverside field either side of the bridlepath from Chestnut Lane.

Eurasian Teal Anus crecca, Shoveler Anus clypeata and Gadwall Anus stepera like areas of water with lots of cover to feed in safety and can be found on all small water bodies within the area particularly favouring the safety of Barton Flash.

Common Pochard Aythya ferina, Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula and Goosander Mergus merganser are only found on the river with large numbers in extreme weather when the gravel pits freeze on the Attenborough Nature Reserve.

Bittern Botaurus stellaris has been a regular winter visitor on Holme Pit since 2009 with more than one bird recorded in anyone year. I have also seen singles feeding in the drainage dykes and Barton Flash area. A single female bird was also trapped and ringed and was seen to return for the following 2 winters at Holme Pit.

Merlin Falco columbarius an annual winter visitor that has been seen hunting regularly on Brandshill grasslands and the Barton riverside fields.

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria and Lapwing Vanellus vanellus find the areas farmland and pasture good places to spend the winter months. Lapwing Vanellus vanellus increase in numbers in the winter months with large numbers arriving from other location to spend the winter here. Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria are less abundant and regular with often just c.20 birds staying the winter although large flocks of up to 500 have been seen on several occasions.

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago and the scarcer Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus are both annual winter visitors favouring the many drainage dykes and Barton Flash.

Woodcock Scolopax rusticola can be found feeding in the early mornings favouring areas close to cover, the areas hedgerows along the Barton riverside fields, Barton Flash and Brandshill are all favourite locations for this species and they roost in the daylight hours within Brandshill Wood and other areas of seclusion.

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus is an irruptive species that frequents the area every few winters and finds hunting the area around Barton Flash to its likeing.

Skylark Alauda arvensis and Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis both increase in numbers with large flocks been a regular occurrence each winter.

Stonechat Saxicola torquata was once a very regular winter visitor with up to four pairs spending the winter here. Recent cold winters hit them hard but they are now starting to recover with two pairs found in the last two wintering on the Barton riverside fields and Barton Flash areas.

Winter Thrushes are well represented with large numbers of Fieldfare Turdus pilaris and Redwing Turdus iliacus feeding on Hawthorns and pasture throughout the winter.

Starling Sturnus vulgaris numbers increase from late autumn onwards feeding on pasture and any other suitable areas. Favoured areas are the Barton riverside fields and the Barton Flash area.

Siskin Carduelis spinus have never been an abundant species in this part of the area but have often been seen feeding on Alders in the many copses scattered in the area.

Linnet Linaria cannabina flocks build up in the winter months and can be seen feeding throughout on many fields in this area.

Passage Migrants

A number of passerine passage migrants use the area as a refuelling point on both spring and autumn passage.
A very Notable species that occurs annually are Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus that arrive on the Brandshill grasslands in the last two weeks April. As many as five of these mountain blackbirds annually stop over to feed up for around two weeks .
Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe, Whinchat Saxicola rubetra, Common Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus, Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava, Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis to name a few are also regular passage migrants that depend on this area as a refuelling point and respite in migration.

We love our countryside. Please leave it alone.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a Nottingham City Councillor for Clifton South, a part of Nottingham which includes Clifton Village, Larkhill Retirement Village (400plus residents), Nobel Road estate and other residential suburbs in very close vicinity to the proposed mineral extraction area at Mill Hill.

The site is well known to my constituents and I have been contacted by residents who are worried about the proposed use.

I wish to object to the proposal to include the Mill Hill site in the latest version of the Draft Minerals Local Plan.

General Comments

Firstly I recall that the original draft Minerals Plan considered and wisely rejected mineral extraction at Mill Hill/Barton in Fabis. At the time, the County Council responded to concerned objectors as follows:

"As a result of revised information put forward by the mineral operator promoting a site at Shelford, and the subsequent assessment and consultation work undertaken, the County Council is no longer proposing to identify the Barton In Fabis site as an allocation in this Minerals Local Plan. This is because the Shelford site is considered less environmentally constrained as identified in the Sustainability Appraisal. Given the additional mineral reserves provided by the Shelford site, the Barton in Fabis site would not be needed over this plan period to meet the requirements for Sand and Gravel as set out in the Plan" (County Council standard response to original representations prior to 2017).

Flawed Methodology
The methodology of the latest draft plan is flawed. It proposes a "geographical spread" of to ensure mineral extraction takes place close to markets and reduces where possible impacts of HGV vehicles on the road network. At the same time, this methodology will place sites close to residential and urban areas where environmental impacts will be far greatly increased. This is directly contradictory to the Council's published approach of "minimising impacts on local communities.

The methodology seeks to assess future need by looking at mineral sales data over the last 10 years. However, building work is likely to increase substantially over the next 10 years with the commitment for more new homes and also investment in infrastructure. If so, it will be a serious mistake to abandon the large and more sustainable Shelford site and replace it with the a smaller site- where the degree of harm could be considerable.


Mill Hill Site

I would like to register considerable concern regarding the proposed use of this site for mineral extraction.

You will be aware that part of the site is identified as a Biological Site f Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and, as mentioned above, the site is close to substantial residential communities..

1. In particular I have concerns about the damaging effect to wildlife, alone the nature corridor, extending north to Clifton, particularly to Holme Pit and Clifton Wood (within my ward), and Attenborough.
2. The working of this site over many years will also cause a substantial loss of amenity for people who would otherwise enjoy the natural benefits of this area.
3. The workings will cause large amounts of noise and dust. There will need to be considerable mitigation measures implemented which are still unlikely to be sufficient to minimise the harm to large numbers local residents.
4. Choosing this site is counter to the conclusions of the original draft Minerals Plan which acknowledged the "environmental constraints" as identified in the Environmental Appraisal.
5. By choosing a site close to an urban area, the impacts have been multiplied to an unsustainable level

In summary the environmental impacts are twofold and very significant:

1. Significant impacts on the ecology of an extremely special and sensitive area of green belt.

2. Significant impacts on the life and amenity of a very large residential population.


I would argue that combined scale of these impacts is more harmful to the area than in any other proposed site within the draft plan.

I would therefore ask the authority not to include the Mill Hill site as part of their Draft Minerals Local Plan and I wish to formally object.

Yours faithfully,