Question 11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31043
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Stuart Mortimer
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31044
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Stephen Faulkner
MP2s Mill Hill near Barton
I have just today walked the public footpath - Clifton to Barton in Fabis when I was alerted to the possible planned destruction of this beautiful natural area. Places like this are so needed on the edge and so close to a large city estate.
My walk today was somewhat spoilt as I could not get home quick enough to write this letter to heartily protest against the proposed extraction site and all the associated problems that will also follow if it ever opens.
Please think what you are doing.
Sand and gravel provision - MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis'
No, No, No. I have just today walked the public footpath - clifton to Barton in Fabis (I have done the walk before on several occasions) when I was alerted to the possible planned destruction of this beautiful natural area. Places like this are so needed on the edge and so close to a large city estate.
My walk today was somewhat spoilt as I could not get home quick enough to write this letter to heartily protest against the proposed extraction site and all the associated problems that will also follow if it ever opens.
Please think what you are doing.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31045
Received: 18/09/2018
Respondent: Shirley Spilsbury
1. Destruction and pollution in Barton alongside the Attenborough Nature Reserve
2. Within Greenbelt
3. Damage to bridleways, people walking, fishing, riding and causing a huge amount of noise to the environment.
There has to be a lung near the city for people to walk and have leisure time. This is not a foreign country where they disregard the safety and welfare of the people and do not consider climate change.
I hope the planning committee take all these points of objection and act sensibly and truly represent the will of all the people in Barton, Clifton, Thrumpton and Attenborough.
1. Destruction and pollution in Barton alongside the Attenborough Nature Reserve
2. Within Greenbelt
3. Damage to bridleways, people walking, fishing, riding and causing a huge amount of noise to the environment.
There has to be a lung near the city for people to walk and have leisure time. This is not a foreign country where they disregard the safety and welfare of the people and do not think about climate change.
I hope the planning committee take all these points of objection and act sensibly and truly represent the will of all the people in Barton, Clifton, Thrumpton and Attenborough.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31046
Received: 12/09/2018
Respondent: Sally Barker
Objection to MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis
1.Environmental damage
The Barton /Mill Hill site has been evaluated as the most environmentally damaging site of all, in the operational stage, of those proposed in the county by the County Councils own Sustainability Assessment and that it is the third most damaging in the long term.
There are other potential sites which are far less damaging.
There will be a negative effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve, which is a site of Special Scientific Interest which, itself, contains 5 Local Wildlife Sites, one of which will be destroyed totally.
Objection to MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis
1.Environmental damage
The Barton /Mill Hill site has been evaluated as the most environmentally damaging site of all, in the operational stage, of those proposed in the county by the County Councils own Sustainability Assessment and that it is the third most damaging in the long term.
There are other potential sites which are far less damaging.
There will be a negative effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve, which is a site of Special Scientific Interest which, itself, contains 5 Local Wildlife Sites, one of which will be destroyed totally.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31047
Received: 19/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs Sue Thompson
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Wildlife is very precious and we will lose all our native plants and animals. We have foxes, badgers, Monk Jack deer, oaks and beech trees, plus many more native plants and animals. Stop killing our countryside please.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31053
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Rosanne Sheppard
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31054
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Cutts
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31055
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Meg O'neil
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31056
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: W Parker
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31057
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Roger Banks
Number of people: 2
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31058
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: David Clitheroe
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. It would also impact the rich wildlife in the area.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. The restoration will take too long and the landscape will be left scarred and not able to recreate the character of the countryside.
I am writing to confirm that i wish to OBJECT to Sand and Gravel provision Site MP2's Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'.
The Barton in Fabis site has been evaluated by the County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' as the most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The proposed site is would impact on the two local sites that are designated SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit, these SSSI sites will be impacted by the noise and dust, there is also a high risk that the water quality of Holme Pit would be affected by operations of the quarry.
The proposed site is would impact on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) on of those sites would be lost and destroyed altogether.
There is evidence that this site and surrounding areas are rich in bird life and other species, there are 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species using the area for feeding and breeding.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
We as a family use the area for walking, cycling and running, the area is an area of outstanding beauty and it is peaceful considering is locality to the A453. We make regular visits with our grandchildren to look for varying types of birds.
The restoration plans are not to restore the land to its current state but to marshland and standing water. Even this is likely to take 10 years to establish, meaning that the area will be unusable for up to 25 years.
There is a need to reduce the level of extraction in future by making better use of mineral resources and developing alternatives. Quarrying can have a devastating impact on the countryside. Noise, dust and heavy lorry traffic are characteristics during mining operations and too often landscapes are left scarred by extraction. Even when restoration is mandatory and then undertaken, it is seldom- if ever- able to recreate the character of the countryside which was developed over centuries.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31059
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Marie Clitheroe
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. It would also impact the rich wildlife in the area.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. The restoration will take too long and the landscape will be left scarred and not able to recreate the character of the countryside.
I am writing to confirm that i wish to OBJECT to Sand and Gravel provision Site MP2's Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'.
The Barton in Fabis site has been evaluated by the County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' as the most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The proposed site is would impact on the two local sites that are designated SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit, these SSSI sites will be impacted by the noise and dust, there is also a high risk that the water quality of Holme Pit would be affected by operations of the quarry.
The proposed site is would impact on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) on of those sites would be lost and destroyed altogether.
There is evidence that this site and surrounding areas are rich in bird life and other species, there are 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species using the area for feeding and breeding.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
We as a family use the area for walking, cycling and running, the area is an area of outstanding beauty and it is peaceful considering is locality to the A453. We make regular visits with our grandchildren to look for varying types of birds.
The restoration plans are not to restore the land to its current state but to marshland and standing water. Even this is likely to take 10 years to establish, meaning that the area will be unusable for up to 25 years.
There is a need to reduce the level of extraction in future by making better use of mineral resources and developing alternatives. Quarrying can have a devastating impact on the countryside. Noise, dust and heavy lorry traffic are characteristics during mining operations and too often landscapes are left scarred by extraction. Even when restoration is mandatory and then undertaken, it is seldom- if ever- able to recreate the character of the countryside which was developed over centuries.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31060
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Christine Cuomo
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31061
Received: 12/09/2018
Respondent: A.J Woolley
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31062
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Anthony Mc Cracken
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31063
Received: 27/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs Barbara Walker
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31064
Received: 27/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs Barbara Venes
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31065
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Christopher Short
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31066
Received: 27/09/2018
Respondent: D.J. Woolley
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31068
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Marie Clitheroe
I object to MP2s because:
As a family we regularly visit the area with grandchildren.
The restoration will not return the land to its current state, but to marshland and standing water. This is likely to take 10 years to establish, the area will be unusable for upto 25 years.
Extraction should be reduced in the future by making better use of mineral resources and developing alternatives. Quarrying can have a devastating impact on the countryside including noise, dust and heavy lorry traffic. Restoration is unable to recreate the character of the countryside which was developed over centuries.
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 proposed site will have an impact on the local sites that are designated SSSIs, Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit, these SSSI sites will be impacted by the noise and dust, there is also a high risk that the water quality of Holme Pit would be affected by operations of the quarry.
The proposed site would impact on five LWS's one of those sites would be lost and destroyed altogether.
There is evidence that this site and surrounding areas are rich in bird life and other species, there are 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species using the area for feeding and breeding.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
We as a family use the area for walking, cycling and running, the area is an area of outstanding beauty and it is peaceful considering its locality to the A453. We make regular visits with our grandchildren to look at the varying types of birds.
The restoration plans are not to restore the land to its current state, but to marshland and standing water. Even this is likely to take 10 years to establish, meaning that the area will be unusable for upto 25 years.
There is a need to reduce the level of extraction in future by making better use of mineral resources and developing alternatives. Quarrying can have a devastating impact on the countryside. Noise, dust and heavy lorry traffic are characteristic during mining operations and too often landscapes are left scarred by extraction. Even when restoration is mandatory and then undertaken, it is seldom - if ever - able to recreate the character of the countryside which was developed over centuries.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31069
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Dorothy Woodall
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term. The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit which are close to the site, and 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. Thee would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people as well as loss of opportunities for recreational and leisure pursuits.
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.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31070
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Mrs Jan Buck
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31071
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: S Vernon
I object to MP2s because:
I live in Barton in Fabis and believe this will have an adverse impact on the village and surrounding countryside.
I am a keen runner using the woodland and countryside where this site is planned.
I would find it extremely difficult to continue to use this as my running route due to asthma.
I disagree with the County Council that Shelford and Coddington are too big.
The council has not followed its aim to prioritise sites with potential for transport by river barge by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
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.
Alongside this my objection is based on the fact that I live in Barton in Fabis and strongly believe these plans will have an adverse impact on the village and surrounding countryside.
I am also a keen runner often using the woodland and countryside in and around Barton where this site is planned.
Should these plans be approved I would find it extremely difficult to continue to use these great facilities as my running route as I suffer from asthma and have been advised by my doctor and NHS advise that regular exercise is a good remedy for people with my symptoms.
I disagree with the County Council's suggestions that both Shelford and Coddington are too big for these types of plans and strongly advise the council to consider these as potential sites.
The council has failed to follow its policy aim to prioritise sites with potential for transport sand and gravel by river barge by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31072
Received: 27/09/2018
Respondent: Mr. Stuart hill
Sustainability Assessment - Environmentally Damaging.
Geographically Significant - Not an agreed criteria.
Conservation - Extremely damaging.
Safety - Very poor safely risk.
I strongly object to the inclusion of Mill Hill in this plan.
In my view any one of the following points should result in the inclusion of Mill Hill being seriously re considered with the cumulative effect of these points leading to rejection of the inclusion.
1 Your own Sustainability Assessment has previously evaluated the Mill Hill site as the most environmentally damaging site of all of those being considered. How can this site be re instated in the plan?
2 There is mention of the site being geographically significant for sand and gravel supply. Is this an important criteria ? I cannot see how it is.
3 This site would be a very poor choice for nature.
We should all have concerned over the impact of noise and dust on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100 m away) as well as the impact on the water quality of Holme Pit SSSI. The proposed site also contains 5 LWSs (Local Wildlife Sites), one of which would be destroyed, and two partially destroyed by the development.
The site is rich in bird life and other species. 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species use the area for feeding and breeding
Grass snakes, harvest mice, otters, toads, and bats are also currently present on site. These along with other possibly endangered and protected species should not be so easily discounted.
This is not a low impact site.
The site is currently Green belt and is regarded as the "lungs of Clifton"
Are we really ready to give up on this valuable resource (for possibly 25 years) when other less damaging sites are available.
From a safely viewpoint I am concerned over,
The safety of conveyors and other vehicles crossing foot and bridle paths.
Heavy and Slow vehicle access on to The Mill Hill roundabout. There has been mention of lights being installed to improve safety. Surely after spending £250 million on the A453 improvements we are not going to slow the traffic for this sole purpose.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31080
Received: 28/09/2018
Respondent: Ms Elaine Padden
4.43 mill hill is as a quarry site is contended by nearby residents and those concerned for the effect on the river and local ecology. These are legitimate concerns in a rural area like this, and there is an added concern in the form if the prospect of possible housing developments following the completed extraction process (after 15 years or so the character of this area would be difficult to restore and unless it was properly documented at first difficult even to remember)
4.43 mill hill is as a quarry site is contended by nearby residents and those concerned for the effect on the river and local ecology. These are legitimate concerns in a rural area like this, and there is an added concern in the form if the prospect of possible housing developments following the completed extraction process (after 15 years or so the character of this area would be difficult to restore and unless it was properly documented at first difficult even to remember)
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31093
Received: 27/09/2018
Respondent: James Clay
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31095
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Joy Verity
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31097
Received: 27/09/2018
Respondent: K Taylor
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31099
Received: 25/09/2018
Respondent: Kath Verty
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
Comment
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Representation ID: 31100
Received: 26/09/2018
Respondent: Francis Buck
I object to MP2s because:
SA shows the proposal is one of the most damaging assessed. No data available to support the geographical spread of sites and the exclusion of Shelford and Coddington cannot be justified. The proposal is in the greenbelt and will impact SSSIs, LWS and has Ancient woodland adjacent. Sites with barge transport have not been allocated going against plan policies. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community.
Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.