Question 21: What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbons over the plan period?

I cannot understand why the County Mineral Plan does not contain a separate policy on Unconventional Hydrocarbons, stating (para 4.109):
"It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development."
There are many issues with the industry which have been well publicised, such as, the problems of traffic on rural road, the damage to wildlife and the environment, the dangers of fracking in a mining area, the possibility of contamination of wells and aquifers, the disposal of toxic waste, the effects on Health and seismicity.
During a previous consultation on Notts Minerals Plan a wide range of people put forward a number of reasons why there needs to be a specific policy to control 'unconventional hydrocarbons', including:
* A legal requirement for Plan policies to reduce climate emissions (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s19(1A))
* Industrialisation of the landscape - lorry movements, toxic gas haze, groundwater contamination, increased accident risk, occupational hazards
* Horizontal drilling - requiring a 3-D site boundary and complex mapping of fault lines
* Need for large amounts of water for fracking
* Need to dispose of toxic flowback water
* Precautionary approach to protect groundwater - particularly the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer
* Methane leaks making greenhouse gas emissions greater than for coal overall
* Mapping to protect groundwater sources and sensitive sites
* Toxic air emissions
* Seismic activity, particularly in former coalfield areas
* Many impacts are unavoidable
* Difficulties of regulation due to scale
* Damage to farming and tourism
* It won't bring the price of gas down
* Very few local jobs
* Ignoring evidence of seriously destructive impacts to health of local people, farm animals, wildlife, local economy, climate and local environment - which cannot be regulated away
This has all been totally ignored. The industry itself has no social license and the Government is now proposing to make exploratory drilling a permitted development which means that the PEDL license holders will no longer have to obtain planning permission. The Government also has plans to make fracking an NSIP. If this happens there will be no opposition to fracking and the gas companies will even be able to compulsory purchase the land for drilling.
I believe that the Minerals plan should have a separate policy for Unconventional Hydrocarbons or shale gas which needs to consider and plan for the risks associated with all of the issues stated in the paragraph above. In addition I believe it should also address the following points.
(1) The economics of the industry
It is claimed that "Vast quantities of methane exist in many shale deposits worldwide and recent technological advances have now made it economically possible to exploit them."
In fact one of the most noteworthy features of efforts to tap shale oil and shale gas has been that it has rarely been possible to exploit them economically. This is even if one illegitimately defines "economic" in a way that ignores negative impacts to the environment and public health (which in economic theory are called "external environmental costs").
Even with a definition of "economic" that is purely commercial, and only counts private costs and benefits to the fracking companies, the experience in multiple countries, including the USA has been that fracking is loss making. Thus fracking has been abandoned as uneconomic in Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In other countries outside Europe too profitability ("economic gas fields") has proved elusive.
There is a reason. Unconventional oil and gas fields have much higher costs than conventional ones. Tapping "conventional" oil and gas from permeable geological strata is cheaper in that the oil and gas flows underground and can be pumped out with less engineering. In contrast an "unconventional gas or oil field" has to release the gas from impermeable rock and therefore needs up to 100 more wells for the same amount of gas (or oil). A field must achieve economies of scale to have any chance of making a profit. It needs more activity underground to fracture the rock and it needs more activity on the surface to facilitate that. That is why it is more dangerous to the environment and public health - and also why it is more financially expensive. It requires more ongoing capital equipment too. Without a high gas (or oil ) price all of these activities cannot be made profitable.
To be long term viable the fracking sector requires three things: favourable geology, high oil and gas prices and easy and cheap credit. All three have proven elusive, making for disappointing results in all of the locations around the world where it has been tried. Unconventional gas is struggling to get off the ground outside of the USA and Australia. And in the USA, where it started, although it managed to get the credit to pay for the capital expenditure there are now grave doubts that a mountain of debt will ever be paid back. There are now many mainstream analyses saying this - including in the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes
https://www.economist.com/.../21719436-exploration-and-produc...
https://www.wsj.com/.../wall-streets-fracking-frenzy-runs-dry...
https://www.forbes.com/.../this-is-what-the-end-of-shale-wi.../...
http://www.credoeconomics.com/shale-euphoria-the-boom-and-.../
Meanwhile in the UK doubts about the profitability of shale gas development also mean that very few investors are prepared to put up money
http://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/.../the-shale-revolution-e.../
None of these basic facts are to be found in the issues and options paper yet they are absolutely central. For example to discuss unconventional gas (or oil) extraction without discussing the high likelihood that it will not be profitable - as well as missing out a mention that the condition of profitability is that the industry must operate at a very high scale - is to miss out the most important features

(2) Consequences of scale and precariousness of this industry
It is one thing to have an industry with a handful of wells throughout the county all of which are comfortably covering their costs - it is quite another to talk about an industry with hundreds, perhaps thousands of wells which are operating under conditions of marginal profitability or of negative cash flow, losses and rising debt.
Let us say there is a 5% chance that each well fails or has a spill that pollutes the water table it s accepted that all wells will fail within their life time. With a few wells that is a risk one might make - especially if the industry has the money from profits to pay for a cleanup. If there are hundreds of wells with a 5% chance that each well fails AND if the industry is making a loss with a negative cash flow there is a very different situation. Not only will several pollution incidents be almost inevitable but the companies will be reluctant to spend money being careful about how they operate, they will be likely to cut corners on safety to cut costs. Further, when leaks and spills occur the companies will not be in a position to afford the clear up. This is no matter how much government and politicians try to kid themselves that the Environment Agency and the HSE are on top of the situation. To rely on the Gold Standard of safety applied by the regulatory service is naïve at best.
I realise that it is conventional in planning decisions to have a presumption in favour of development. However development is supposed to be "sustainable development" and what has been described above is an unsustainable development. Indeed it is uneconomic development where costs exceed benefits. This is very clear - the balance of available scientific evidence based on repeated experience of hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas development around the world has demonstrated adverse impacts on the quality and quantity of water resources, including groundwater and water courses; on air quality (including through emissions of methane and sulphur); on seismic activity; on local communities; and on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The government and industry repeatedly claims otherwise on the basis of studies that are now at least 5 years out of date, ignoring literally hundreds of academic studies in the meantime. For a peer review of the academic literature between 2009 and 2015 see https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/.../Literature-Review-2009-2...
The balance of evidence in the UK also demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive are NOT capable of effectively regulating this industry and making it safe. Over several years of exploratory activity there have been multiple failures and breaches of the regulations that do not augur well for the future. Nor has the Oil and Gas Agency effectively kept track of firms like IGas which have repeatedly failed to meet OGA criteria for financial stability.
https://drillordrop.com/.../guest-post-by-jon-and-val-mager-.../

(3) Climate Change
Then there is climate change. Astonishingly the pages about hydrocarbons do not mention climate change as an issue. This is despite the fact that we have an issue of more CO2 being generated when oil and gas extracted are burned as well as the fact that fugitive methane emissions are recognised as a serious problem with unconventional gas extraction. It is also despite the fact that the government's own advisers have issued a view on the matter of the development of unconventional gas. In fact the Committee on Climate Change has said that shale gas would only be compatible with Britain's climate targets for greenhouse gas emissions if 3 tests are met.
These three tests are: (1) Methane leaks (fugitive emissions) can be controlled. (2) Gas consumption must remain in line with carbon budgets requirements. UK shale gas production must displace imported gas rather than increasing domestic consumption. (3) Accommodating shale gas production emissions within carbon budgets. Additional production emissions from shale gas wells will need to be offset through reductions elsewhere in the UK economy.
Under current conditions there are no policies to achieve these conditions and there is no way the planning committee can ensure that they are achieved either. (Achievability would require administrative and regulatory competence and robustness AND it would require the existence of technological measures and economic capacity to install and operate mitigation strategies. None of these currently exist.)
Furthermore, as regards test 2 whereby UK shale gas production must displace imported gas, what is to stop the gas that would have been imported be re-routed, sold and then burned somewhere else in the world. Of course the UK has no powers to prevent this displaced gas being burned elsewhere so we are talking about a policy fig leaf and a fiction. The fact is that any shale gas extracted in the UK would be additional to what is being produced elsewhere whether or not Britain's carbon budget were met or not. Britain might still be meeting its national carbon budgets but it would be helping undermine the global carbon effort and stoking the global warming.
(4) In conclusion
Finally the evidence of unconventional gas development globally has been that unconventional gas development is rarely commercially economic, is short term and is unsustainable even on narrow conventional criteria. The industry in the USA and elsewhere has accumulated large debts and persistent negative cash flows that are only possible given very low interest rates and a finance sector more interested in earning fees by raising cash, than acting responsibly by ensuring that the industry for which it is acting actually has a credible future. The industry in the USA has been funded on a Ponzi basis and, as such, will eventually collapse leaving the clear up to the public purse. Even if one accepts a presumption in favour of development (which I personally do not) it is supposed to be for sustainable development and shale gas is not even a commercially sustainable industry. While it is not usually a matter for planning authorities to assess the commercial viabilities of industries County Councils will certainly pick up the bill for setting things right if and when it allows this industry to go ahead and later has to clear up the wasteland when the companies have taken what money they were able to and gone.
America's shale firms do not consider financial returns
"Exploration and production companies are poised to go on another investment spree"
ECONOMIST.COM
I am asking you to revise the Mineral Plan to include a separate policy on Unconventional Hydrocarbons. If not how will the minerals plan as it stands Protect Sherwood Forest and the rest of Nottinghamshire from the likes of INEOS and IGas.

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - Draft Plan Consultation
Comments from Nottingham Friends of the Earth
(Note: our comments submitted in January 2018 are attached as an Appendix to provide background information.)
Climate change
1) Policy MP12 (Hydrocarbon Minerals) does not adequately consider the responsibility to plan to meet the challenge of climate change. The Revised NPPF (July 2018) states in para 149: "Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change ..." (in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008). Policy MP12 should be redrafted to ensure that proposals for exploitation of hydrocarbon minerals are tested against this requirement.
2) As an example, the Cumbria Minerals & Waste Local Plan adopted in September 2017 includes under Policy DC13 (Criteria for energy materials) a requirement that, for exploration and appraisal, "the impacts of the development have been considered in relation to impact on climate change"; and, for commercial exploitation, "the impact of the development has been considered in terms of contributing to the mitigation of climate change".
3) The Kirklees Local Plan (currently consulting on Proposed Modifications) includes under Policy PLP42 (Proposals for production of hydrocarbons) a requirement that proposals "will be considered against the following criteria: ... h. Where a proposal demonstrates that it will have a net zero impact on climate change."
Unconventional hydrocarbons
4) We do not agree with the statement in section 4.109 that "It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development." (See our response to the Issues & Options consultation in January 2018 in the Appendix below for a number of reasons why shale gas development could pose a different order of planning challenges as compared to the small oil and gas wells currently operating in the county.)
5) There are a number of issues considered in the public examination of the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Joint Plan earlier in 2018 which should be considered for the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan, including:
* A definition of hydraulic fracturing suitable for the planning system, now amended to "Hydraulic fracturing is the process of opening and/or extending existing narrow fractures or creating new ones (fractures are typically hairline in width) in gas or oil bearing rock, which allows gas to flow into wellbores to be captured."
* 500m separation distance.
* The Inspector also seems to have accepted arguments for a maximum wellpad density and for financial guarantee.
6) In the Nottinghamshire context, specific reference should be made to risks associated with former coalfield workings. Bassetlaw MP John Mann has urged consideration be given to a report by Geophysics Professor Peter Styles who has drawn attention to the importance of making use of high-resolution mapping of faultlines.
7) Specific reference should also be made to the importance of the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer.
1. http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/planning-environment/policy/minerals_waste/MWLP/Adopted.asp
2. Main Modifications, s 5.119: https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fileroot/Planning%20and%20development/Minerals%20and%20waste%20planning/Examination%20Library/LPA%20Docs/LPA90%20-%20Main%20Modifications%20to%20be%20discussed%2013%20April%202018.pdf
3. https://drillordrop.com/2018/04/13/live-updates-inspector-examines-key-issues-on-fracking-in-north-yorkshire/
4. https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fileroot/Planning%20and%20development/Minerals%20and%20waste%20planning/Examination%20Library/LPA%20Docs/LPA89%20500m%20buffer%20note.pdf
https://drillordrop.com/2018/03/13/live-updates-fracking-policy-for-n-yorkshire-comes-under-scrutiny/
5. https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2017-19/1303
http://www.talkfracking.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Fracking-and-Mining-Styles-Final.pdf

I would like to submit the following response to the Notts county draft mineral plan consultation on behalf of Warsop parish council.

The Minerals Plan will set the baseline of policy in Nottinghamshire for all types of mineral extraction for the Plan period, including fracking and other types of unconventional oil and gas extraction. Large sections of North Nottinghamshire fall within Petroleum Exploration and Development License areas; affected communities may become enveloped by fracked gas field development on an unprecedented scale during the Plan period.
The draft Minerals Plan does not contain a separate policy on Unconventional Hydrocarbons, stating (para 4.109):

"It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development."

The following extract from Ryedale Draft Minerals Plan (5.120) defines the difference between conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon development, stating:
"Whilst a number of activities associated with shale gas development are similar to those associated with conventional hydrocarbons development, including the need for construction of a well pad and the operations involved in initial drilling of a well, there are also a number of significant differences. Examples include the potential for increased activity associated with the fracturing operations themselves, the expectation of the need to drill a number of horizontal wells from one or more well pads, the potential for high noise levels during periods of hydraulic fracturing activity, and increased traffic movements as a result of the need to bring in additional materials or water and remove waste materials."
Unconventional shale gas extraction using High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing techniques is new to Nottinghamshire and will require a "robust regulatory framework" to ensure the environmental risks and health impacts are minimized.
Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impact of the development of potentially hundreds of wells across the Nottinghamshire countryside: the National Strategic Infrastructure Project consultation paper indicates the scale of intended development and the requirement for associated infrastructure, which is greater by far than the existing conventional wells operating in Nottinghamshire (DBEIS Initial Consultation Paper "Inclusion of Shale Gas Production Projects in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project Regime" July 2018). Such significant development will bring extensive industrialisation to rural areas, impacting air quality, water resources, traffic movement and public amenity, amongst other factors.
In order for the NCC Minerals Plan to properly carry out its planning function of controlling the use and development of land in the public interest and ensuring that new development is appropriately located, a specific and separate policy seems essential. The draft policy at present bypasses a useful opportunity to address many issues of public concern, including:
* Safeguard existing land use by specifying areas that should be protected from the impacts of unconventional hydrocarbons, especially already-designated areas of natural beauty, heritage, and water source protected, for example, and setting safety guidelines for distances from faults, old mine working, residences, etc. in case of blow-outs and explosions.
* a legal requirement for Plan policies to reduce climate emissions (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s19(1A))
* industrialisation of the landscape - lorry movements, toxic gas haze, groundwater contamination, increased accident risk, occupational hazards
* horizontal drilling - requiring a 3-D site boundary and complex mapping of fault lines
* water resource issues - large amounts of water for fracking; disposal of toxic flowback water; precautionary approach to protect groundwater - particularly the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer
* evidence of seriously destructive impacts to health of local people, farm animals, wildlife, local economy, climate and local environment - which cannot be regulated away
* seismic activity, particularly in former coalfield areas
* the global consensus to move away from fossil fuels to combat climate change and move towards clean, green energy sources - the draft Minerals Plan states a presumption to support hydrocarbon developments, "provided they do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity." This does not specify criteria, nor defines what "unacceptable impacts" would be. Again, this is missing an important opportunity to move policymaking towards encouraging greener, sustainable development. Hydrocarbon use is neither sustainable, nor clean.
Legal precedent on establishing carbon neutral planning criteria has been set by Kirklees Council, who have included the following in their hydrocarbons policy statement, which has been approved by the Inspectorate:
"Policy PLP42
Proposals for production of hydrocarbons will be considered against the following criteria:
.......
h. Where a proposal demonstrates that it will have a net zero impact on climate change."

https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-policy/pdf/policies-and-strategies-2016.pdf
The National Planning Policy Framework states the importance of having a plan-led system with local plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area.
"186. Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground."
NPPF, March 2012
Both the draft Warsop Neighbourhood Plan and the draft Mansfield Local Plan have been developed through wide consultation with the communities and based on research and evidence thereby collected, grasping the opportunity afforded by Localism legislation to move decision-making responsibility to communities themselves.
Warsop Neighbourhood Plan (Draft)
Community Vision states: "Protection of the rural landscape will have kept the area as an attractive location to live. The sustained emphasis placed upon improving bus, cycle and pedestrian routes will have reduced the impact of traffic through the area, including on the A60, facilitating a more sustainable pattern of development in this part of the district."
Aims of the Plan include preserving, protecting and where possible enhancing the distinct and historic identity of the Parish, open countryside, important green spaces, local wildlife and biodiversity and promoting the health and well-being of residents.
The natural environment is one of Warsop Parish's greatest assets, being set within the attractive countryside on the edge of Sherwood Forest. Warsop's countryside is a special and important aspect to its character and valued by 92% of Community Questionnaire respondents.
Mansfield Local Plan (Draft)
2.28 "There is a need to put safeguards in place against possible contamination of water sources, especially areas designated as zone one aquifers. These are mainly around Market Warsop, Meden Vale and areas to the south of Mansfield urban area."
2.29 Key Issues... "A requirement to ensure growth and development takes fully into account sustainability issues relating to land use, climate change, air pollution, water quality and abstraction"
2.38 "One of the most significant attributes of the town (Warsop) is the green corridor along the River Meden, including The Carrs recreation ground and local nature reserve that connects to Pleasley Vale and Shirebrook. Not only is it a local hub for recreation, its position on the northern edge of Market Warsop makes it one of the most important areas of strategic green infrastructure in this part of the district."
The Plan stresses "The need to protect and manage important strategic areas of open land."
3.38 Mentions that "Sustained emphasis on improving bus, cycle and pedestrian routes will have reduced the impact of traffic through the area."
Objectives 5, 6 and 7 relate to ensuring the district is safe, clean, green and of a high quality; that all new development achieves a high standard of design to support sustainable development; ensures that development reduces, mitigates and adapts to the impacts of climate change .... whilst protecting residents' amenity from noise and visual impacts.
Both the draft Warsop Neighbourhood Plan and the draft Mansfield Local Plan highlight the importance of our green spaces, countryside and heritage sites with a vision of protecting and enhancing same, together with promoting the health and well-being of residents. The extensive development of shale gas extraction across the area will challenge the achievement of that vision, therefore it is imperative that the Minerals Plan should include comprehensive criteria to protect that vision, against which planning applications for shale gas development should be assessed.
Summary

Experience elsewhere, plus the growing body of scientific evidence shows specific and substantial threats from shale gas exploration and extraction in terms of, for example:

* Community health risks from air and water pollution.
* Damage and destruction of valued amenities through industrial development and heavy transport on rural roads.
* A significant risk of triggering earthquakes, especially in an area of extensive old mineral workings.

We believe that the above, plus other factors highlighted, do provide justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate unconventional hydrocarbons from other hydrocarbon development.

Warsop Parish Council call upon Nottinghamshire County Council to ensure the Minerals Plan provides more specific shale gas development policy through clear, comprehensive and detailed criteria addressing procedures, risk mitigation and emission reduction and is respectful of our Neighbourhood and Local Plan visions for our communities.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - Draft Plan Consultation (27th July to 28th Sept 2018)
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and production. We are supportive of the development of this plan, in that it will enable Nottinghamshire to, 'prepare an up-to-date Minerals Local Plan which will guide the future development of mineral planning in our county up to 2036'.
We would like to remind the Council to have full regard of the Written Ministerial Statement: Energy Policy of 17th May 20181.
Our response to the specific questions, relevant to our industry are as follows:
Strategic Objectives:
Question 1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG supports the Nottinghamshire local plan's vision and strategic objectives in their current form. The plan states that 'Over the plan period to 2036 minerals will continue to be used as efficiently as possible across Nottinghamshire. Minerals are a valuable natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused to minimise waste'. UKOOG appreciate this pragmatic approach to mineral development and the recognition as part of the plans vision that 'Nottinghamshire will continue to provide minerals to meet its share of local and national needs.' However, we believe the objective needs to present a wider position and we suggest the wording is modified to include 'and facilitate the development of' minerals to meet local needs and contribute to the national need, 'particularly for energy if the opportunity arises'. UK onshore oil and gas development is compatible with the plan's 8 key strategic objectives, specifically through the development of an adequate supply of domestic minerals under a regulatory environment superior to that of countries from which the UK imports its minerals. It is also important that the plan recognises the need to minimise the impact on climate change. A domestic oil and gas supply offers significant
carbon savings over fuels which otherwise would be imported from overseas.
Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development:
Question 2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG are supportive of the general themes in policy SP1, as we believe that sustainable domestic development is of great importance to the UK. This is especially the case, as the plan makes clear, in the transition to a low carbon economy. Failure to develop UK minerals in a sustainable and heavily regulated domestic environment will result in the offshoring of tax revenue,
jobs, and our carbon emissions. Policy SP1 is aligned with the NPPF but must also take full account of the Written Ministerial Statement: Energy Policy of 17th May 2018.
We note in SP1 - Point 2 states applications .... 'will be approved' and SP1 - Point 3 says that planning permission will be granted. In both cases we believe the wording should be changed to 'applications will be supported', as the approval and/or granting of planning permission is a matter for the determining person/committee, and there is no certainty of outcome.
In the justification text in paragraph 3.6, we believe that the wording should be modified to; 'It is also national policy to support the exploration, appraisal and potential production of hydrocarbons and other minerals, as part of addressing climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy'.
Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
Question 3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
UKOOG Response: It is UKOOGs view that this strategic policy should be worded to equally apply to all minerals. In its current form the policy appears to be very 'aggregate' orientated and should be more flexible in supporting the development of other mineral types.
SP2 point 2 The reference to 'avoidance' should be replaced with 'minimisation' as avoidance may not be possible in the event of a national need.
Policy SP4 - Climate Change:
Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG supports the ambitions of the Climate Change Act (2008), which is the UK Government's mechanism for addressing climate change and its 'nationally determined contribution' to the Paris Agreement.
Policy SP4 states that: 'All minerals development, including site preparation, operational practices and restoration proposals should minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.'
The industry already acts to ensure that emissions associated with hydrocarbon development are minimised. Wells and associated activities are comprehensively monitored in-line with environmental permits throughout the exploration, appraisal and production phases, applying 'Best available techniques' (BAT). Similarly, wells are decommissioned, and sites are restored to ensure environmental impacts are minimised. The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which
requires plans to take a proactive approach to 'mitigating and adapting to climate change' (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF
and the climate change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to state the proposals should 'minimise the impact on climate change by mitigating and managing development emissions'.
The only the emission related issues, which represent material planning considerations, are those associated with the local development of the resource, such as limiting traffic movements. The control of onsite emissions, directly associated with the operation, are regulated by the Environment Agency,
which include methane and NMVOC's. The end use combustion of the hydrocarbons produced, is not a local material local planning consideration, as that is controlled and regulated by central government. For example, if natural gas is produced and sent to a separate combined cycle gas turbine, this facility is already separately permitted and regulated, and any climate impacts are
accounted for within national assessments.
Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG agree that minimising traffic movements in the development of minerals
is sound, where it is practical to do so. The onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of materials and waste products from its operations, wherever it is feasible to do so, but the policy must align with the principal that minerals, including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found. This may not explicitly align with policy SP5 - 2(b), which states, 'within close proximity to the
County's main highway network and existing transport routes in order to avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation'. It is our view that site specific traffic management plans will address local impacts, should they be identified, and that this policy is over restrictive in its current form. The policy must also recognise the short-term traffic impacts of some
mineral developments, where there may be more intense periods of traffic activity but only for a very limited time. Sp5 - Point 1 should also include reference to other forms of transport; for example, conveyors and pipelines etc.
Policy SP7 - The Nottinghamshire Green Belt
Question 8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
UKOOG Response: It is our view that the policy should provide for development uses that have temporary impacts on the openness of the Green Belt.
Policy SP8 - Minerals Safeguarding, Consultation areas and Associated Minerals Infrastructure Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
UKOOG Response: The policy does not take full account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to 'non-mineral development' in parts 1,3 and 4 but 'development' in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a
mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth and occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight minerals resources referred to in paragraph 3.82 of the draft plan. Proposals
for hydrocarbon development in a safeguarding area and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and supporting text should be amended accordingly.
Policy MP12 - Hydrocarbon Minerals
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG believe the policy is generally aligned with both the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance. The policy states;
'Policy MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals Exploration
1.Proposals for hydrocarbon exploration will be supported provided they do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity.
Appraisal
2.Where hydrocarbons are discovered, proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided that they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of the resource and do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity.
Extraction
3.Proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource and do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity.
Restoration
4.All applications for hydrocarbon development will be accompanied with details of how the site will be restored once the development is no longer required'.
It is our opinion that the use of the term 'any' in the exploration and appraisal policy text, as underlined above, is overly restrictive and is also inconsistent with the wording used in the Extraction policy text, which states; 'do not give rise to unacceptable impacts'. We suggest that the wording used in the 'extraction' policy text 'do not give rise to unacceptable impacts', should be used in the
Exploration, Appraisal and Extraction policy text consistently.
The wording used for 'restoration' reads as a condition requirement, rather than a policy. We would suggest that this is changed to, 'sites will be restored to their former use, or agreed improved condition, or to an alternative agreed acceptable use, in accordance with the policies of the development plan'.
The policy should also reflect the WMS of 17th May 2018 and changes to the NPPF, which came into effect on the 24th of July 2018
The draft policy text for appraisal states that 'proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided, that they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of theresource'. Similarly, the draft policy for extraction states that, 'proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full
development of the resource'. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the 'overall scheme', and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application.
Furthermore, the requirement for 'an overall scheme' is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG. In fact, the regulatory auspice for the identification and assessment of the oil and gas mineral resource resides with the Oil and Gas Authority. If it is referring to an overall scheme for exploration and appraisal in a general wider context, the text should be deleted, as this will not be known at that stage.
UKOOG comments on Justification text for section MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals
We agree with the wording used in paragraph 4.109 in the justification text, which states,
'It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development. All hydrocarbon development has the potential to deliver national energy requirements but should be subject to environmental safeguards.
Applied to the local circumstances of the Minerals Local Plan, the assessment of environmental and amenity impact (i.e. the constraints on hydrocarbon development) is covered by and can be delivered through the application of the development management policies'.
Both hydrocarbon source rocks and other hydrocarbon bearing geologies, give rise to the same products. These products are extracted through the same surface infrastructure, via boreholes on a purpose-built facility, consisting of the same basic design and features/equipment. For example,
hydraulic fracturing has been undertaken at 10% of the 2000 + wells drilled onshore in the UK into conventional reservoirs. There is common misunderstanding applied to the terms 'conventional' and
'unconventional' as being 'processes'. In fact they refer to the sub-surface geology and not the process. We support the draft plan policy that there is no planning consideration which justifies the separation of shale gas from other hydrocarbon development.
We further note that paragraph 4.113. states, 'A hydrological assessment will be required in support of any planning application and water availability may be a limiting factor in any proposal'.
Both aspects, a 'hydrological Assessment' (groundwater/surface water assessments) and 'water availability' fall under the regulatory remit of the Environment Agency (EA) and are not planning considerations. The inclusion of a hydrological assessment and any assessment of water availability
are not justified in planning policy terms as it duplicates the requirement by the EA under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). The draft plan also appears to suggest that a hydrogeological assessment is solely a requirement for onshore hydrocarbons and not to other extractive industries discussed in the draft plan, to which the EPR regulations equally apply.
Section 5 - Development Management policies
Paragraph 5.4, on page 97, - Environmental Impact Assessment. The final line 'Where EIA is required,
the findings of this', appears to have text missing, as it is an incomplete sentence.
Page 98 - The Policy MP11: Coal - this section appears to be duplicated from page 88.
Policy DM1 - Protecting Local Amenity
Question 22 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local amenity?
UKOOG Response: UKOOG are supportive of the policy statement in DM1, 'Proposals for minerals
development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that any adverse impacts on amenity
are avoided or adequately mitigated to an acceptable level', recognising that existing guidance, such
as Planning Practice Guidance and the NPPF provide the framework for assessing impacts on amenity
such as noise mitigation and landscape.
Policy DM2 - Water Resources and Flood Risk
Question 23 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM2: Water resources and flood
risk?
UKOOG Response: As clearly stated within the supporting policy justification text, para 5.24; 'The
Environment Agency is the main authority for safeguarding the water environment'. Therefore, the
policy text under 'water resources' in Policy DM2, duplicates the role of the Environment Agency in regulating the water environment and should be deleted.
'Policy DM2:
Water resources
1. Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that:
a. Surface water flows at or in the vicinity of the site are not detrimentally altered;
b. Groundwater quality and levels are not detrimentally altered;
c. There are no unacceptable risks of polluting ground or surface waters;
d. Water resources, where required, should be used as efficiently as possible'.
It is the role of the Environment Agency, through the Environmental Permitting Regulations to determine appropriate measures for the protection of surface and groundwater water resources, not the mineral planning authority. Planning Practice Guidance clearly states that it is the role of the Environment Agency to 'protect water resources (including groundwater aquifers)'.
Policy DM3 - Agricultural Land and Soil Quality
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality?
UKOOG Response: Minerals, including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found. The Government in the WMS 17th May 2018 state, 'Mineral Plans should reflect that minerals resources can only be worked where they are found, and applications must be assessed on a site by site basis and having regard to their context. Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across their plan area
that limit shale development without proper justification'. The currently drafted policy is overly restrictive and does not take account of this, neither does it address the temporary nature of development.
'Policy DM3: Agricultural Land and Soil Quality Agricultural land
1. Proposals for minerals development located on the best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that:
a. There is no available alternative and the need for development outweighs the
adverse impact upon agricultural land quality; or
b. Proposals will not affect the long term agricultural potential of the land or soils; or
c. Alternative land of lower agricultural value has considerations which outweigh the adverse impact upon agricultural land quality.
2. Where alternative options are limited to varying grades of best and most versatile land, the development should be located within the lowest grade'
Site selection is a fundamental part of any oil and gas development proposal and it is our view that the policy test established under DM3 are unnecessarily high. The policy should be amended to facilitate the use of land for a temporary period, which would not result in the longer-term impact on 'the best and most versatile land'. It should also specifically include reference to land restoration to
its former use, or an agreed improved use, once temporary operations are completed.
Policy DM4 - Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Question 25 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
UKOOG Response: The draft plan states that proposals for minerals development will only be supported where they can demonstrate 'they are not likely to give rise to a significant adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest'. Under the UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the surface extraction of shale gas are prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be considered on a case by case basis.
It is important to recognise that all onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and provide a clear opportunity, post decommissioning, for sites to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition, for example; a site can be redeveloped to maximise habitat potential and improve biodiversity.
We also note that the plan highlights that Nottinghamshire does not contain any European registered 'Special areas of conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
Policy DM5 - Landscape Character
Question 26: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
UKOOG Response: Onshore oil and gas developments have for decades, operated safely within sensitive environments. Production sites are typically screened by trees or other natural features and are designed not to adversely impact the character and distinctiveness of the landscape.
Once a site is decommissioned, the land is restored in-line with planning conditions and any environment consenting requirements, taking full account of landscape character.
Policy DM6 - Historic Environment
Question 27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?
UKOOG Response: The draft minerals plan states that 'the use of careful design, buffer zones, considered restoration schemes and other mitigation may make it possible to accommodate mineral developments in the vicinity of designated heritage assets'.
The NPPF and WMS 17th May 18, make clear that the use of arbitrary buffer zones or 'set restrictions or thresholds' for shale or onshore oil and gas development should not be established 'without proper justification'. However, the careful design, on a site by site basis of proposed developments in the
vicinity of designated heritage assets is appropriate and compatible with national policy.
Policy DM8 - Cumulative Impact
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM8: Cumulative impact?
UKOOG Response: The plan states that proposals for minerals development will be supported 'where it can be demonstrated that there are no unacceptable cumulative impacts on the environment or on the amenity of a local community'. The draft plan justifies this by specifying that this would apply in relation to a collective effect of different impacts or an individual proposal, or in relation to the effects of a number of developments occurring either concurrently or successively.
UKOOG firmly believe that developments should be considered on a case by case basis and that 'potential future developments' should be excluded from contemporary material planning considerations. Therefore, the description that minerals plans are considered in conjunction with 'reasonably foreseeable developments' is not appropriate and should be deleted.
Policy DM10 - Airfield Safeguarding
Question 31 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?
UKOOG Response: The draft policy states that, 'Proposals for minerals development within the following Airfield Safeguarding Areas will be supported where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed extraction, restoration and after use will not result in any unacceptable adverse impacts on aviation safety'. The wording here should be amended to include reference to proposed exploration and appraisal, and not just extraction and restoration.
Yours Sincerely,

Comments from Frack-Free Nottinghamshire 27-9-2018

These comments are written on behalf of Frack Free Nottinghamshire (FFN) which is part of a national movement that opposes unconventional hydrocarbon extraction by means of hydraulic fracking. It acts as an umbrella/support group for other more local frack-free campaign groups across the county.

We are taking the opportunity to comment again upon this repeat Local Plan exercise, although Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) officers will recognise that many of our concerns on the Hydrocarbons section have been aired at previous stages of the Plan's preparation. However, we have found that they have been generally (and unjustifiably) overlooked, often with little coverage in the Council's reports of consultation.

For instance, in the latest Draft Plan the box that heads the chapter on Hydrocarbon Minerals, the main thrust of our submission (and comments from FoE and several individuals) that unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and production requires a separate policy approach has been omitted. Hence we would argue that the Committee and wider public has been misled about the real " focus" of these comments which emphasised how its scale and other factors make hydraulic fracking (or fracturing) for shale gas a special case in addition to its adverse impacts on local communities, groundwater and wildlife etc.

Consequently we are re-submitting the comments made in January this year on the Issues and Options consultation (see attached), and intend to reinforce the points made there in favour of a separate policy approach -as has been favourably greeted by the Inspector at the ongoing Public Examination of the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan. We also argue that there is thus even less justification for promoting or supporting fossil fuel extraction in the light of increasing evidence that the climate is in crisis and cannot easily adapt to its existing carbon loading.

The MPA maintains that "..there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development ".
In disputing this statement, FFN insists that there should be a distinction (as agreed in North Yorkshire) and that it is too complacent of the MPA to rely on applying the same Development Management policies that the Draft Plan prescribes for conventional hydrocarbons and other mineral activities whose impacts are well understood. We have listed our preferred justifiable reasons below:

a) the Draft Plan needs to recognise the different scale and techniques of operation employed by companies that undertake hydraulic fracking as opposed to conventional oil and gas extraction from less deep permeable rock, and also that these more aggressive techniques ( at depths up to km) are relatively unproven as yet in the UK.
As has been recently recognised by the Government in anticipating that some fracking proposals might be classified at NationalIy Significant Infrastructure Projects, there is potential for extensive infrastructure, ie multiple well-pads,roadways,lights and pipelines etc., capable of industrialising the countryside, disrupting agriculture and overwhelming local communities.

b) the Government has recently been warned by a report from Professor Styles of the risk that deep fracking can trigger seismic activity in former mining areas (Ref: Prof Styles Report). This is a legitimate, additional concern for an MPA, and in the light of Government proposals to introduce permitted development rights for exploratory drilling, it is suggested that tighter rather than looser regulation should probably apply in Nottinghamshire. Since there are regular tremors recorded in parts of the county, the MPA must view seismicity reports from the appropriate regulator with great care.

Also, greater attention to and more community involvement in emergency planning procedures is required given that drilling/fracking activities can give rise to serious incidents (such as blow-outs) affecting public health across a wide area. In this connection, it would be wise for the local plan policies to establish minimum buffer zones and well-pad density as per the North Yorkshire Local Plan.

c) The safeguarding of the Sherwood Sandstone and other aquifers in Nottinghamshire for its value in providing drinking and process water for the county is crucial as the consequences are very long-term if breaches occur during or after deep drilling. The potential for leakages via damaged or corroded well-pipes and surface spills that can pollute this vital resource is so high (Ref: USA experience) that groundwater integrity should be subject to a precautionary or no tolerance approach. We believe that Policy SP6's reliance on the prospect of such impacts being "adequately mitigated and/or compensated for" is ill-conceived and should not apply to fracking activities. In addition we recommend a strengthening of DM2 to ban frack-drills through major aquifers because, in accordance DM2 1(c), we understand it to be an "unacceptable risk".

d) Since the aim of fracking is to extract high volumes of methane gas, the process has considerable potential to release carbon emissions and to leak methane into the atmosphere -mainly during the construction and production phases. Furthermore, it should never be overlooked that the end product is a fossil fuel whose use the Government and the County Council are duty bound to reduce (by virtue of planning law) in order to address climate change. Whilst this is recognized by the revised NPPF in paras 149 and 151, its emphasis on renewable and low-carbon energy sits uncomfortably with the positive view of onshore oil and gas development urged upon MPAs in para 209(a) elsewhere in the document.
Whilst generally approving of Policy SP4, we would advocate the deletion of para 3.37 which allows energy minerals to be treated as an exception, and the replacement of "help reduce" with "consistently minimize" concerning GHG emissions in 1(a).

e) There is a real issue with fracking company debt, as explained in our Issues and Options submission (p.3) and the prospect of sites being abandoned at considerable eventual cost to the public purse. Whilst the County Council has seen fit to require financial bonds from developers to insure against this risk, it should not be assumed that their operations (or that of their successor companies) will always remain viable -which will need to be better reflected in implementation policies and planning conditions.


Finally we wish to query the Government's strong support for the fracking industry as a response to predicted future energy shortages. This is echoed in para 4.106 by the drive for less dependency on imports, which supposedly prompts a need for "a very strong impetus to explore and develop new domestic sources of oil and gas" including "previously untapped unconventional sources such as coal bed methane and shale gas".
We suggest that, apart from dangerously delaying action on climate change, this response to depletion perpetuates the failure to recognise its inevitability, and that increasingly costly ventures (in commercial, social, environmental and energy terms) to explore and extract fossil fuels will eventually become unaffordable. The real response would be to prioritise effective plans and programmes to boost energy conservation and renewable schemes throughout the local economy.

I am writing on behalf of the Nottinghamshire Branch of The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in response to the County Council's consultation on its draft plan.

I want to say, at the outset, that CPRE recognises the need for mineral extraction in Nottinghamshire. However, it also needs to be recognised both by local authorities, the industry and others that the impact of extracting millions of tonnes of aggregates (sand, gravel, and rock) every year on the countryside and local communities can be enormous, both during the operation and afterwards. There is a need to reduce the level of extraction in future by making better use of mineral resources and developing alternatives.

While having some small quarries to meet local needs may be appropriate (such as to provide stone to maintain locally characteristic housing) the size of modern quarries, combined with their location in often sensitive rural environments, makes aggregates quarrying one of the most controversial rural industries. Despite planning controls over quarrying and improved methods of operation, quarrying can still 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.


In our opinion, it is inappropriate that plans for mineral extraction should be built on society's demand for minerals and driven by driven by statistical forecasts for demand. The environment is too often taken into account only when considering where to quarry, not whether we really need to. The extent of land with plans for quarrying means that in some areas, there are enough sites already secured (the 'land bank') to ensure that quarrying continues for decades. These unused reserves hold billions of tonnes of aggregates - enough to build over hundreds of motorways - and hinder efforts to influence the rate of quarrying and to move towards a more sustainable basis for exploiting natural resources.

CPRE would like to reduce the damage to the countryside from quarrying by encouraging the more efficient use of aggregates and managing demand. We believe this can be achieved through recycling, making greater use of alternatives and reducing waste in construction. We dislike the notion of a narrow 'predict and provide' approach to quarrying. CPRE believes a fundamental overhaul of policies on quarrying is urgently required, so that in future the policies:

* value the whole countryside, its landscape, character and tranquillity by giving clear priority to reducing demand for aggregates, and including targets to steadily reduce the primary extraction of minerals;
* replace the old 'predict and provide' approach to minerals planning with more positive planning policies which use the principles of 'plan, monitor and manage' and environmental capacity assessments to govern where quarrying may be required. Such a change should also promote more sustainable construction techniques which reduce reliance on mineral extraction;
* ensure appropriate economic signals are sent to quarry operators and consumers which reflect the environmental costs of extraction on the countryside and help to break the link between economic prosperity and the consumption of natural resources; and
* achieve the more prudent use of natural resources through reuse, recovery and recycling, use of alternative (including non-aggregate) materials and techniques, and closer integration with land use planning.

Whilst I appreciate that some of but not all these considerations have been taken up by the County Council in the draft Plan and the actions of the Council are constrained by national policy, it is the considerations outlined above that drive some of the points that we do wish to make about the proposed changes to the future sand and gravel provision for Nottinghamshire.

The Plan states at paragraph 3.8 that "within Nottinghamshire the priority is therefore to extend existing sites, in preference to developing new sites, and to encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregates far as possible". This priority has not counted for a great deal, when it has already been cast aside. There are new sites at both Barton-in-Fabis, near Nottingham; and Botany Bay

We wish to comment on each of these sites.

 
Barton-in -Fabis
1. Quarrying on this site would significantly impact on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit which are close -by and on five Sites of Important Nature Conservation one of which would be destroyed altogether.

2. We have concerns about three rights of way passing through countryside between Barton in Fabis and Clifton. It is difficult to see how this access could be protected or suitably managed or how the proposal is in line with Policy DM7: Public Access.

3. 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. We trust that mineral sites selection is not driven by party political consideration, but we cannot help but observe that the County Council's assessment of the sustainability and environmental impact of this site, under a previous administration, resulted in its rejection and exclusion from a previous draft Minerals Local Plan.

4. The site is close to populated areas which would be inevitably impacted by noise and dust.

5. The restoration suggested is 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.

6. The issue of "geographical spread" of mineral extraction across the county is not a persuasive reason to establish a new site unless there are overwhelmingly other positive reasons to do so. The fact that a planning application has already been made is not such a reason and it is hard to detect any other reason that justifies giving priority to opening a new site here. The draft plan does not follow its policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" and I do not believe this site is suitable on such a basis in any event.

7. Policy SP7 does state that minerals developments will be supported where the openness of the green belt is preserved, but 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 fact that minerals can be extracted in the green belt hardly seems to be a reason that they should be in this case.






Botany Bay

1. Properties on the southern edge of the village of Barnby Moor will particularly be adversely affected by the quarry, especially if a processing plant is established on site.

2. A feature of the agricultural land here is mature hedgerows and tree belts. These cannot be replaced quickly once any restoration is contemplated.

3. Where the A638 where it crosses the main east coast rail line there are elevated views of a great proportion of the site which cannot be screened.

4. The Chesterfield Canal is, at present, set in a tranquil setting. The quarry will badly affect canal boat users and those walking along the canal path. Whatever screening is proposed is hardly likely to ameliorate these effects to a satisfactory degree.

5. Dewatering of the workings could have an adverse impact upon the stability of the A638 (the Great North Road) and on the East Coast Rail Line (which is, of course, a vital transport link between London and the North of England and Scotland). There is also the possibility that creating more water spots will encourage birds that might endanger the local air traffic.


Finally, we want to make some comments about hydrocarbons and shale gas.


Hydrocarbons and Shale Gas

Paragraph 4.109 of the draft plan states:

"It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development."

The facts are that extraction of gas or oil out of shale rock is very different to getting 'conventional' hydrocarbons out of permeable rock formations which allow gas or oil to flow to a well head from some distance. Shale must be fractured underground using horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This can be done only up to a mile or so from the wellhead, requiring well pads every couple of miles (and repeated fracturing every year or so) - potentially leading to a widespread industrialisation of the landscape. Frankly. It is extremely disappointing that the draft plan does not recognise these plain facts.

Nottinghamshire has large areas which could be fracked for shale gas in the north and south west. The east of the county could be drilled for coal bed methane.

Large parts of the county rest on Sherwood sandstone with aquifers important for drinking water for agriculture. And large areas of Nottinghamshire have been subject to coalmining - with associated instability and subsidence.
As you are aware, IGas has been granted permission to drill at exploratory sites at Misson and Barnby Moor. And Ineos has licences covering around 1,000 square kilometres around the Sherwood Forest area (including almost all the area between Chesterfield and Ollerton and between Mansfield and Sheffield. Ineos have even taken the National Trust to court to force seismic testing across Clumber Park.

We shall be open about our view on shale gas which is that fracking should be halted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the following criteria are met.
* Help secure the radical reductions in carbon emissions required to comply with planning policy and meet legally binding climate change targets;
* Not lead to unacceptable cumulative harm, whether for landscapes or on the English countryside as a whole, and
* Be carefully controlled by effective systems of regulation and democratic planning, which are adequately resourced at both local and national levels.
However, we accept and appreciate that the County Council must proceed in line with government guidelines. That said, there does not appear to be any good reason why the County Council should not set some criteria for its planning approach to shale gas extraction. Would the Council really want to see fracking beneath Clumber Park? Why should the Council not have an established approach to matters such as and including:

* heavy goods vehicle movements and suitable transport links; increased accident risks, and occupational hazards;
* the arrangements for disposal of toxic flowback water;
* measures to protect groundwater - particularly the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer;
* toxic air emissions; and
* seismic activity, particularly in former coalfield areas; and
* particular landscapes.


Yours faithfully

Response to Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Plan

Submitted by SAGE and Shelford Parish Council

Question 1
What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
plan?

We believe that the vision and objectives are clear, straightforward and achievable. In particular we are pleased with the emphasis on minimising transport effects on the environment by choosing sites which are close to forecast demand. Also we appreciate the importance attached to minimising the effect on communities.

Question 2
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy.

Question 3
What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy, in particular the emphasis on extending existing sites.

Question 4
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

We are in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the move towards wetlands as an objective rather than deep cold water lagoons.
We would repeat our previous comment that while accepting that LBAP indicators are the only policy objectives available, there are other issues connected with the loss of farmland habitats and information from wildlife surveys and RSPB red and amber listed birds should be noted.

Question 5
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

We are generally in agreement but note the correlation between flood risk and climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather conditions.
In addition we appreciate the emphasis placed on efficient site operations and minimising transport emissions.

Question 6
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

We are in full agreement with the draft policy and note particularly the recognition that barging up stream to Nottingham may not be economical and that sites should minimise transport distances to main markets.

Question 7
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural
environment?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the requirement that "such planning will have to take account of the impacts of potentially more extreme flood events".
However we are concerned by the statement "Future mineral extraction within high risk areas is unlikely to be avoidable". The consequences of this on communities, either from flooding or from structural flood prevention measures would be enormous and conflicts with the policy of minimising effects on communities.

Question 8
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green
Belt?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 9
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 10
What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?

We support the options chosen. The forecast statistics appear more reasonable in the light of current and foreseeable construction activities.
However we are concerned by the statement "Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated".
We would argue that the same rigour be that has been applied to the Minerals Plan would need to be used in the approval of any additional proposals and that this policy does not allow for a "free for all" development situation.

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

We support the draft policy approach and believe it satisfies many other policy requirements, especially proximity to demand and minimising the impact on communities. In particular it is pleasing to see the bulk of demand being satisfied from existing resources.

Question 12
What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

We agree with the allocations.

Question 13
What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand
over the plan period?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 14
What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

We are in full agreement with this draft policy.


Question 15
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 16
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 17
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 18
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 19
What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over
the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 20
What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.




Question 21
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 22
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local amenity?

This is a critical area and generally we support the provisions. However it is important that proposed site working arrangements are satisfactory before planning approval is given.
In addition we feel more emphasis should be given to health (respiratory) implications of air particulates, especially in the Trent Valley where a funnelling effect may concentrate particulates and thus aggravate health problems for local communities.

Question 23
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM2: Water resources and
flood risk?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy wording and are pleased to see the use of the Sequential Test to direct the choice of sites to those with the least risk of flooding.
We believe this subject to be the most uncertain and variable as to its outcomes and will require the utmost rigour to be applied, particularly with regard to climate change. For instance, when considering proposals for mineral extraction at the very earliest stage, we would emphasise the need to produce an interim flood risk assessment (via an EIA) so that early decisions can be taken on an informed basis, using robust data.
At a more detailed level we question the assumption that the storage of flood-plain water in worked out quarries would not jeopardise existing river-flow patterns.

The intangible cost to communities in terms of flood alleviation schemes and the potential barriers and structures that may be necessary needs to be set against the benefits of extraction.

Question 24
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality?

We accept the inevitability of trading agricultural land for minerals extraction over the medium tem but believe the major effort should be directed towards restoration wherever possible. Following potential political (BREXIT) and climatic problems provision of food should be prioritised over amenity.




Question 25
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?

We agree with this policy but would prioritise protection over creation of habitats.

Question 26
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?

We support this policy. However, we feel it should include reference to the approach to be taken to landscape assessment at the local level when considering specific mineral developments AND the inclusion of the role of local communities in this assessment.

Question 27
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic environment?

We strongly support this policy but would like to see mention made of protecting physical access to archaeological and historic sites in addition to he specific sites themselves.

Question 28
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: Public access?

We support this policy but wonder how the "unacceptable impact" on the existing rights of way will be judged?

Question 29
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM8: Cumulative impact?

We support this policy but the wording could include reference to the potential of future mineral workings in an area, especially as many mineral operators would have long term realistic strategies for an area in addition to specific development proposals.

Question 30
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM9: Highways safety and
vehicle movements/routeing?

We support this policy but in addition to c) "routeing to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities" we would like to see the inclusion of the impact of air quality on local communities arising from routeing and vehicular movements.

Question 31
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?

We support this policy.

Question 32
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM11: Planning obligations?

We strongly support this policy.

Question 33
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use
and aftercare?

We support these policies but would add the following :
Restoration - add 4 d) provide evidence that imported waste would not contaminate water sources or the environment generally.
After-use - add (in 8?) after-use proposals should not cause undue problems or inconvenience for local communities through for example noise, traffic impact, etc.


Question 34
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM14: Incidental mineral
extraction?

We support this policy.

Question 35
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM15: Borrow pits?

We support this policy.

Question 36
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial
development?

We support this policy. We would add the words "but those developments falling outside the GPDO would be subject to planning permission in the normal way"

Question 37
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM17: Mineral exploration?

We support this policy but would add the words "should be notified to the County Council but would generally" after "Proposals for mineral exploration" and before "be permitted etc".

Response to Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Plan

Submitted by SAGE and Shelford Parish Council

Question 1
What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
plan?

We believe that the vision and objectives are clear, straightforward and achievable. In particular we are pleased with the emphasis on minimising transport effects on the environment by choosing sites which are close to forecast demand. Also we appreciate the importance attached to minimising the effect on communities.

Question 2
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy.

Question 3
What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy, in particular the emphasis on extending existing sites.

Question 4
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

We are in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the move towards wetlands as an objective rather than deep cold water lagoons.
We would repeat our previous comment that while accepting that LBAP indicators are the only policy objectives available, there are other issues connected with the loss of farmland habitats and information from wildlife surveys and RSPB red and amber listed birds should be noted.

Question 5
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

We are generally in agreement but note the correlation between flood risk and climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather conditions.
In addition we appreciate the emphasis placed on efficient site operations and minimising transport emissions.

Question 6
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

We are in full agreement with the draft policy and note particularly the recognition that barging up stream to Nottingham may not be economical and that sites should minimise transport distances to main markets.

Question 7
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural
environment?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the requirement that "such planning will have to take account of the impacts of potentially more extreme flood events".
However we are concerned by the statement "Future mineral extraction within high risk areas is unlikely to be avoidable". The consequences of this on communities, either from flooding or from structural flood prevention measures would be enormous and conflicts with the policy of minimising effects on communities.

Question 8
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green
Belt?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 9
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 10
What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?

We support the options chosen. The forecast statistics appear more reasonable in the light of current and foreseeable construction activities.
However we are concerned by the statement "Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated".
We would argue that the same rigour be that has been applied to the Minerals Plan would need to be used in the approval of any additional proposals and that this policy does not allow for a "free for all" development situation.

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

We support the draft policy approach and believe it satisfies many other policy requirements, especially proximity to demand and minimising the impact on communities. In particular it is pleasing to see the bulk of demand being satisfied from existing resources.

Question 12
What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

We agree with the allocations.

Question 13
What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand
over the plan period?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 14
What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

We are in full agreement with this draft policy.


Question 15
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 16
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 17
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 18
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 19
What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over
the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 20
What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - Draft Plan Consultation
Consultation Draft - September 2018
This response to the consultation draft of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan is prepared on behalf of IGas. IGas is British company listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange. It is a leading UK onshore oil and gas exploration and production business, holding a portfolio of production and exploration assets primarily focused on three regions: the North West, East Midlands and the Weald Basin in Southern England.
The business has more than thirty years' experience of successfully and safely extracting and producing hydrocarbons onshore in the UK working closely with local communities, regulators and MPAs. The UK is recognised globally as a leading example for oil and gas industry regulation.
IGas is committed to the protection of the environment and providing safe and healthy working conditions for its employees and contractors. It is also committed to maintaining close and responsive relationships with the communities in which it operates and has a long track record of engaging with local residents.
IGas has been operating its own Community Fund since 2008 which has, over the last decade, distributed almost £1 million to local projects that are charitable, educational or benevolent in purpose.
IGas holds a number of onshore UK licence interests in the three regions many of which it both owns and operates:
* North West: EXL273 and PEDLs 056, 145, 147, 184, 188, 189, 190,193, 293 and 295.
* East Midlands: AL009, EXL288, ML, 3,4,6 and 7, PEDLs 006, 012, 139, 140, 146,169, 200, 210, 273, 278, 305, 316, 317 and 337 and PLs162,178,179,199 and 220.
* Weald Basin: DL002 and 004, ML 18 and 21, PEDLs 021, 070, 233, 235, 257 and 326 and PLs 182, 205, 211, 233, 240 and 249.
The East Midlands area is comprised of two primary production centres: Welton and Gainsborough.
The Welton area is made up of six fields and a gathering centre where the produced oil, gas and water are separated. The produced oil is transported to Conoco Immingham via road tanker; gas is used for power generation and exported to the National Grid; produced water is pumped for reinjection.
The Gainsborough area is made up of 10 fields and a processing facility. Oil is transported to Phillips 66 via road taker, gas is piped to Gainsborough 1 for power generation and produced water is pumped for reinjection.
More recently IGas has obtained planning permission at Springs Road, Misson to develop a hydrocarbon wellsite and drill up to two exploratory boreholes with Shale Gas being targeted. Development has commenced, and construction of the well pad is nearing completion prior to drilling of a vertical and then horizontal well.
Planning permission for a hydrocarbon well site to drill an exploratory borehole at Tinker Lane, near Bawtry has also been obtained. Development has commenced at Tinker Lane with construction of the well pad nearing completion prior to drilling of a vertical well to target the shale resource.
Our response to the MLP focusses on the Vision and Strategic Objectives; Policy MP12 Hydrocarbons and the supporting text; and the general development management policies.
Initial comment.
Para 1.2 sets out the range of minerals within Nottinghamshire. The plan identifies sand and gravel, gypsum and clay as being all of national importance. Paragraph 1.2 should also reflect the national importance of a shale gas. This is most recently outlined in a Joint Ministerial Written Statement (G Clark (Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) and J Brokenshire (Housing, Communities and Local Government)) 17 May 2018. The Joint Ministerial Written Statement (JMWS) states:
Shale gas development is of national importance. The Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy.
Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development:
Question 2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Policy SP1 at point 2 says applications will be approved and point 3 says planning permission will be granted. Whilst such a strong position could be supported, it is incorrect as the approval and/or granting of planning permission is a matter for the determining person / committee and there is no certainty of outcome. For points 2 and 3 the policy should be amended so that applications will be supported.
We question whether the specific reference to the NPPF at point 3 is relevant. The NPPF will be a material consideration in the determination of all planning applications but it is not the only material consideration. The recent JWMS is also a material consideration in the development of planning policy and determination of planning applications for hydrocarbons.
Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
Question 3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
As a strategic policy applying to all minerals it is very aggregate orientated. The policy needs to be more flexible in supporting other mineral types or perhaps needs to specifically refer to aggregates.
SP2 (2) The reference to 'avoidance' should be replaced with 'minimisation' as avoidance may not be possible in the event national need may prevail.
Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
IGas agree that minimising traffic movements in the development of minerals is sound, where it is practical to do so. The onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of materials and waste products from its operations, wherever it is feasible to do so, but the policy must align with the principal that minerals, including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found. This may not explicitly align with policy SP5 - 2(b), which states, 'within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes in order to avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation'. Site specific traffic management plans will address local impacts, should they be identified, and that this policy is over restrictive in its current form. The policy must also recognise the short-term traffic impacts of some mineral developments, where there may be more intense periods of traffic activity but only for a very limited time. SP5 - Point 1 should also include reference to other forms of transport; for example, conveyors and pipelines etc.
Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
Question 7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
Policy SP6 is onerous and does not recognise the weighting of all facets of sustainable development that should be applied when considering applications for development. Regarding hydrocarbon development, whilst there may be potential for environmental impact, the economic benefit of mineral extraction
should be afforded 'great weight' (paragraph 205 of the NPPF). This is further ratified by the JMWS (17 May 2018).
The significance of impact depends on the significance of the asset it affects. Paragraph 171 of the NPPF states that Plans should, 'distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated assets.' Paragraph 184 of the NPPF recognises a similar approach for the historic environment in that assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Policy SP7 - The Nottinghamshire Green Belt
Question 8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
The final bullet point of Policy SP7 states:
Within the Green Belt, minerals developments will be supported:
* Where the highest standards of development, operation and restoration will be undertaken to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt.
The policy needs to provide for temporary uses that may have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The final bullet point does not conform with NPPF and should be amended, a requirement for higher standards of working is unnecessary as is restoration to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt. Policy SP7 fails to meet the tests of soundness within paragraph 35 of NPPF as it is not consistent with national policy. Ensuring that the operation and restoration is compatible with Green Belt objectives is a more appropriate strategy and reflective of the NPPF.
Policy MP12 - Hydrocarbons
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
We do not believe that the approach being taken at MP12 Hydrocarbon Minerals in the MLP is positively prepared and does not reflect the advice within NPPF or the JMWS of 17 May 2018.
Paragraphs 4.104 to 4.105 of the draft Plan set out the background and approach for shale gas. It is acknowledged within the MLP that there is a potentially significant shale gas resource within Nottinghamshire but the Plan fails to make reference to the potential benefits of a shale gas industry within the UK or the Government support within the Planning Practice Guidance to the NPPF or recent ministerial statements. Para 4.105 of the MLP simply makes reference to the fact that shale gas extraction is a very intensive activity. This is in itself is not backed up by any evidence or experience. For example, the footprint taken up by the site at Springs Road, Misson, is very small in comparison to a colliery or a
sand and gravel quarry. With the operation themselves having far less environmental impacts than a standard quarrying operation.
There is a clear promotion of a shale gas industry at the national level and for consistency this should be reflected within the MLP.
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), originally published by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March 2014, at Minerals paragraph 91 (reference ID: 27-091-20140306) states that "as an emerging form of energy supply, there is a pressing need to establish - through exploratory drilling - whether or not there are sufficient recoverable quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons such as shale gas ......present to facilitate economically viable full scale production."
A Government supported Ernst and Young supply chain report (Getting ready for UK shale gas, April 2014) indicated 'there could be significant benefits for jobs and growth from a successful UK Shale industry: over 64,000 jobs at peak could be supported across the wider economy, with more than 6,000 jobs on shale pads themselves. Many of these would be highly skilled, high quality jobs, with above average pay.'
A combined shale gas and oil policy statement by DECC and DCLG (15 August 2015) stated the following:
A national need to explore and develop our shale gas and oil in a safe, sustainable and timely way.
Exploring and developing our shale gas and oil resources could potentially bring substantial benefits and help meet our objectives for secure energy supplies, economic growth and lower carbon emissions.
The Government therefore considers that there is a clear need to seize the opportunity now to explore and test our shale potential.
These comments have now been reiterated within the JMWS (17 May 2018) which provides specific advice on planning policy and guidance, stating:
This Statement is a material consideration in plan-making and decision-taking, alongside relevant policies of the existing National Planning Policy Framework (2012), in particular those on mineral planning (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons).
Shale gas development is of national importance. The Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. This includes shale gas exploration and extraction. Mineral Plans should reflect that minerals resources can only be worked where they are found, and applications must be assessed on a site by site basis and having regard to their context. Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across their plan area that limit shale development without proper justification. We expect Mineral Planning Authorities to recognise the fact that Parliament has set out in statute the relevant definitions of hydrocarbon, natural gas and associated hydraulic fracturing. In addition, these matters are described in Planning Practice Guidance, which Plans must have due regard to.
Consistent with this Planning Practice Guidance, policies should avoid undue sterilisation of mineral resources (including shale gas).
The Government has consulted on a draft revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The consultation closed on 10 May 2018. In due course the revised National Planning Policy Framework will sit alongside the Written Ministerial Statement.
We intend to publish revised planning practice guidance on shale development once the revised National Planning Policy Framework has been launched ensuring clarity on issues such as cumulative impact, local plan making and confirmation that planners can rely on the advice of regulatory experts.
There is a clear intention at Government level to seize the opportunity now to explore and test our shale potential and this support should be explicit within the MLP.
We object to Policy MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals as currently written. For all four phases of hydrocarbon development Policy MP12 states that development does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity. Such an approach is not in accordance with the NPPF as there is no weighting provided on the level of environmental asset - is it of international, national or local significance. Similar concerns are raised to individual Development Management Policies below.
On a point of clarity:
At para 4.111 it states that the, 'PEDL licences allows a company to pursue a range of oil and gas exploration activities ...'. The PEDL licences actually place an obligation on the holder to explore and develop for hydrocarbons.
Development Management Policies
Policy DM5: Landscape Character
Question 26 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
Policy DM5 is seeking to place a weight on the impacts upon landscape character comparable to that of nationally designated landscapes (of which there are none in Nottinghamshire).
The NPPF states at paragraphs 171 and 172:
171. Plans should: distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework53; take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries.
172. Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads54. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development55 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:
a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and
c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
For the Plan to be sound, Policy DM5 needs to be amended to correctly reflect the guidance within NPPF.
Policy DM6: Historic Environment
Question 27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic environment?
Policy DM6 is not consistent with the NPPF nor is it positively prepared. Chapter 16 of the NPPF sets out the approach for Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
Para 197 of NPPF states:
The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
For the plan to be sound it is recommended that Policy DM6 is amended in line with the guidance of NPPF.
Policy DM10 - Airfield Safeguarding
Question 31 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?
The first part of the policy should include reference to proposed exploration and appraisal.
I trust that the above is self-explanatory and useful. Please don't hesitate to get in touch should you wish to discuss any of the content of this letter.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Response to Question 21
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
Felsham Planning and Development is instructed to submit a representation to the Minerals Plan consultation on behalf of INEOS Upstream Ltd. This representation deals with policy MP12 and Question 21.
We welcome the overall positive approach taken to oil and gas, and note the following in the Minerals Plan consultation document:
 Hydrocarbon minerals, which comprise oil and gas, are the most important energy minerals produced and consumed in the UK.
 Planning permission is one of the main regulatory requirements that operators must meet before drilling a well for both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons.
 There are other regulatory authorities that regulate elements of hydrocarbon development and therefore planning should focus on the land use effects
We welcome the fact that the consultation document provides a single criteria based policy for hydrocarbons. This is a simple and straightforward approach that we have advocated should be adopted elsewhere. In our view this will ensure that a proposed development does not have any unacceptable impacts on the environment or residential amenity at each phase (exploration, appraisal, extraction) and is appropriate to address future conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon development in Nottinghamshire.
Support for a positive approach to hydrocarbons is provided by the previously published Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Plan. Its policy was simple and positively worded and recognised that the policy is supported by other policies in the Local Plan, which provide the details for necessary assessment of impacts. We see no reason for not adopting similar policy wording, therefore, we support the proposed draft text for policy MP12 Hydrocarbon Minerals.
The suggested policy is positively worded. It notes that the main concerns are with the environment and residential amenity but as there are other policies dealing with such impacts, each containing assessment criteria, the oil and gas development policy of the plan does not need to list these considerations in its policy.
The supporting text should provide background and justification, which links to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other Government policies, and the PEDLs should bemapped and safeguarded.
This approach to policy wording will ensure that the policy is in accordance with Government Guidance, in particular the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of May 2018 and NPPF. These are significant matters affecting the drafting of policy MP12 and we feel the policy needs to take full account of the issues raised. We set out below the key points in those documents that we feel should be identified in the supporting text and give weight to our arguments in support of the draft text for policy MP10.
Written Ministerial Statement (May 17th 2018)
The WMS is a new material consideration and should be given great weight as a statement of national policy, especially given that the announcement is so recent. The WMS confirms its status by noting that This Statement is a material consideration in ... decision-taking, alongside relevant policies of the existing National Planning Policy Framework (2012), in particular those on mineral planning (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons). The statement is also clear that Shale gas development is of national importance. The Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. This includes shale gas exploration and extraction. It therefore directly applies to the draft Local Plan minerals policies and confirms the importance to the country of undertaking the activity proposed by the development.
It is Government's view that there are potentially substantial benefits from the safe and sustainable exploration and development of our onshore shale gas resources. The Statement notes that This joint statement should be considered in planning decisions and plan-making in England. This confirms that Government considers there are potentially benefits arising from shale exploration. Again, we would anticipate that draft Minerals Plan will give great weight to this strategic factor..
WMS also states that The UK must have safe, secure and affordable supplies of energy with carbon emissions levels that are consistent with the carbon budgets defined in our Climate Change Act and our international obligations. We believe that gas has a key part to play in meeting these objectives both currently and in the future. It also observes that Gas still makes up around a third of our current energy usage and every scenario proposed by the Committee on Climate Change setting out how the UK could meet its legally-binding 2050 emissions reduction target includes demand for natural gas. Furthermore it states that The UK must have safe secure and affordable supplies of energy" and estimates that we could be importing up to 72% of our gas by 2030. This confirms that unconventional hydrocarbons does not conflict with climate change objectives, and that it is necessary to continue to explore for and ultimately extract gas in the UK in order to provide a local and secure source of gas.
On this basis, Government believe[s] that it is right to utilise our domestic gas resources to the maximum extent and exploring further the potential for onshore gas production from shale rock formations in the UK, where it is economically efficient, and where environment impacts are robustly regulated. INEOS considers that unconventional hydrocarbons have a material benefit in the form of information to help assess the future potential for shale gas extraction in this area of the country, and that it accords with the requirement to assess environmental effects robustly.
The WMS notes that a new shale gas exploration and production sector could provide a new economic driver and that the sector could create a "new model" of the most environmentally robust onshore shale gas sector. Without developments progressing, these opportunities will not be realised.
It also sets out proposals to consult on whether certain unconventional hydrocarbons development should in fact be considered to be permitted development. This indicates that Government's view is that this type of development is not likely to have significant enough effects to warrant express planning control.
In summary, the Minerals Plan should take account of the following points made in the WMS:
Shale gas development is of national importance. The Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. This includes shale gas exploration and extraction.
Mineral Plans should reflect that minerals resources can only be worked where they are found, and applications must be assessed on a site by site basis and having regard to their context. Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across their plan area that limit shale development without proper justification.
We expect Mineral Planning Authorities to recognise the fact that Parliament has set out in statute the relevant definitions of hydrocarbon, natural gas and associated hydraulic fracturing. In addition, these matters are described in Planning Practice Guidance, which Plans must have due regard to.
Consistent with this Planning Practice Guidance, policies should avoid undue sterilisation of mineral resources (including shale gas).
The WMS expressly states that the national planning policy advice which it sets out is a material consideration in plan-making. It makes it clear that shale gas development is of national importance and that it is expected by the UK Government that mineral planning authorities in England will attach great weight when drafting local plan policies on shale gas development to its potential economic benefit.
Publication of new NPPF
Paragraph 209 states that minerals planning authorities should:
a) recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy; and put in place policies to facilitate their exploration and extraction;
b) when planning for on-shore oil and gas development, clearly distinguish between, and plan positively for, the three phases of development (exploration, appraisal and production), whilst ensuring appropriate monitoring and site restoration is provided for;
In support of this policy approach, we suggest that the following supporting text should also be included within the Minerals Plan:
The UK Government's energy policies seek to encourage the use of natural resources indigenous to the UK as part of achieving self-sufficiency in energy production and increasing security of energy and gas supplies. On-shore hydrocarbon extraction is comprehensively regulated. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has awarded a Petroleum, Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL) for an area within the Council's area.
Onshore hydrocarbons provide an opportunity to extract a nationally important natural energy resource without the environmental impact normally associated with minerals extraction.
The extraction of CBM and shale gas will be incremental and involve more than one exploration and production site. Due to advanced drilling techniques, these sites can be up to 1km apart.
Exploration and development rights granted through a PEDL create land use rights across the licence area, subject to obtaining necessary site specific consents. Safeguarding is important because rights create a land use consideration that may be a material factor in assessing other land use proposals in the area. It is a potential land use consideration that others using the planning service need to take into account.
The PEDL licence does not create automatic development rights and the effects may not apply equally across the PEDL area. Due to the nature of the resource and the location, it is important that it is safeguarded where it is present. It is important that the extent of the PEDL is identified in the Plan and its consequences explained.

Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
Draft policy SP4 (Climate Change) requires all minerals development to minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.
The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which requires plans to take a proactive approach to "mitigating and adapting to climate change" (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF and the Climate Change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to replace "minimise" with "mitigate and adapt".
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Policy SP5 (Sustainable Transport) requires all mineral proposals to seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. The policy goes on to state that where there is no viable alternative to road transport, new mineral working should be located (a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets and (b) within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes and minimise the impact of road transportation. The policy fails to take full account of hydrocarbon extraction and onshore oil in particular. The nature of the mineral and the likelihood that wellsites will often be located in rural locations away from the main highway network means that there will be usually no alternative to transporting the drilling and other equipment. The first part of the policy should be qualified by including the words "where appropriate". The second part of the policy should be amended to delete "it can be demonstrated that" since hydrocarbon production by its very nature requires road transport which does not need to be demonstrated. The policy also needs to recognise that the source of hydrocarbon production may not be close to a proposed market (such as a refinery).
Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
The policy does not appear to take account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to "non-mineral development" in parts 1, 3 and 4 but "development" in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth of occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight mineral resources referred to at paragraph 3.82 of the draft Plan. Proposals for hydrocarbon development in safeguarding areas and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and the supporting text needs to be amended accordingly.
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
Policy MP12 (Hydrocarbon Minerals) sets out the Council's policy with regard to the exploration, appraisal, extraction and restoration of sites for hydrocarbon development. The supporting text notes that two main forms of hydrocarbons have been worked in Nottinghamshire - oil and mine gas. In addition, paragraph 4.99 of the draft Plan acknowledges that unconventional hydrocarbons such as coal bed methane and shale gas extraction are being developed in the county and could be worked over the plan period which runs until 2036.
In general terms, the policy is broadly acceptable. However, there are a number of concerns which require amendment to make the policy sound.
1. The policy needs to reflect the changes in the NPPF which came into effect on 24 July 2018. It is welcomed that the policy generally supports the exploration, appraisal and extraction of all hydrocarbons, including unconventional. Paragraph 4.104 acknowledges that the UK has a significant but largely untested potential shale gas resource and that in Nottinghamshire, potential shale gas resources are considered to lie in the far south and north of Nottinghamshire. However, there is no clear recognition in the draft Plan of the economic benefits associated with on-shore oil and gas. Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
2. Part 2 of the draft policy states that proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of the resource. Similarly, part 3 of the draft policy states that proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the "overall scheme". The draft plan is silent about the purpose and the scope of the scheme, who is responsible for preparing it (operators, minerals planning authority or a combination of the two) and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application. Moreover, the requirement for any proposal for appraisal or extraction to be consistent with "an overall scheme" is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG.
The wording of the draft policy implies that proposals for appraisal and extraction will only be permitted if they are consistent with an overall scheme which identifies the full extent of the resource. The ability of an operator to appraise or extract a hydrocarbon reserve will depend upon a number of factors. These include the geological structure of the rock, including its permeability, the technical complexity in drilling a borehole, the depth of the reserve; the market for the reserve; the terms of the agreement of any landowner from where the reserve will be drilled; and the geographical extent of the licence (Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence or other historical licence type) issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. Whilst an operator may wish to extract the full known extent of the reserve, therefore, in practice, other circumstances may affect the scope and timescale for appraising and developing the reserve.
The draft policy could be made sound by deleting references in parts 2 and 3 to "an overall scheme" which currently does not serve any clear purpose.
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3 (Agricultural land and soil quality?
The policy justification presumes that minerals development often involves the use of large areas of agricultural land. However, hydrocarbon exploration or production wellsites often extend for no more than 1 ha. Accordingly, there should be some recognition in the text that hydrocarbon proposals are unlikely to have an adverse impact on best and most versatile agricultural land by virtue of their size.

Re: Draft Minerals Local Plan Consultation
Thank you for consulting NWT on the above. NWT strongly welcomes the MPA's continued approach in seeking to embed the large scale restoration and re-creation of biodiversity into the MLP. NWT supports the MLP's aim to create more habitat, larger areas of habitat, enhanced habitat and habitats that are linked, as this is in accordance with the aims of the Lawton Review and the Natural Environment White Paper. We have welcomed the opportunity to work with the MPA for several years on discussing the concepts behind this approach and also recognise that a great deal of good biodiversity restoration has been both approved and undertaken under the period of the current MLP. We look forward to working in a similar manner with the MPA in the future, underpinned by a shared vision for the substantive conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the County.
NWT welcome that the MPA has adopted many of the suggested forms of words as submitted in our previous responses, and we commend the MPA on a very good Draft MLP. Our comments below relate to matters of important details, but do not detract from our support for the thrust of the MLP to protect the environment through the mineral planning process and ensure that where mineral development is permitted, then exemplary biodiversity-led restoration at a landscape scale is achieved.
In this response, I have followed the convention of showing the existing text from the consultation document in italics and recommended changes in bold italics.
Page 10 Supporting documents:
The following paragraph needs to be updated:
Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping

A project undertaken for the Sherwood and Trent Valley areas to identify particular opportunities for the enhancement, expansion, creation and re-linking of wildlife habitats has been extended across the county and now covers most of the potential allocations that are the subject of this Plan. The BOM can provide important information to help to meet creation/restoration targets set in the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework and Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
Image: Courtesy
Question 1 What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
P15 Nature
This section requires explicit reference to SSSIs and LWS, particularly as the latter are often undervalued by applicants, who fail to understand their importance :
"2.13. Nottinghamshire supports a wide range of important sites for nature conservation, including a Special Area of Conservation within Sherwood Forest, near Edwinstowe, that is of international importance. A large part of central Nottinghamshire is also being considered as a possible Special Protection Area for birds which would provide protection at the international level under European regulations. The quality of Nottinghamshire's natural environment has suffered in the past from the impacts of development and there has been a significant decline in biodiversity, with losses of ancient woodland, heathland, species-rich grassland, hedgerow and wetland habitats, as well as the species that these habitats support. Despite this decline, there remains is a significant network of SSSIs and LWS across the County, representing the wide range of habitat types found on the varying geologies of the County and hosting diverse, and often scarce, species of flora and fauna. Some of these historic declines are now being halted, and in some cases reversed, with neglected sites brought into positive management and new areas of habitat created as a result of the activities of partner organisations in the Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group, by initiatives such as Environmental Stewardship and the English Woodland Grant Scheme, and as a result of restoration schemes. This action is being co-ordinated and quantified through the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan."

Vision
NWT welcomes the principles in the draft vision and strongly supports the stated aim to ensure that landscape-scale biodiversity delivery is achieved, as requested in our previous submissions. Our concerns relate to the potential misinterpretation of the good intentions of the Vision, particularly with regards to the meaning of "sustainable", we would therefore suggest the following addition:
"Over the plan period to 2036 minerals will continue to be used as efficiently as
possible across Nottinghamshire. Minerals are a valuable natural resource and
should be worked and used in an environmentally sustainable manner and where possible reused to minimise waste ".

NWT's only concern in the later paragraphs is the use of "have regard to" which is insufficiently robust to prevent token use, and its use cannot be rigorously quantified. We would expect to see a stronger requirement such as:

"All mineral workings will contribute towards 'a greener Nottinghamshire' by ensuring that the County's diverse environmental assets are protected, maintained and enhanced through appropriate working, restoration and afteruse and by ensuring that proposals take rigorous and quantifiable account of Nottinghamshire's historic environment, townscape and landscape character, biodiversity, geodiversity, agricultural land quality and public rights of way. This will result in improvements to the environment, contribute to landscape-scale biodiversity delivery, including through the improvements to existing habitats, the creation of large areas of new priority habitat, and the re-connection of ecological networks, with sensitivity to surrounding land uses. "

SO2: Providing an adequate supply of minerals
In terms of detail this paragraph appears to include some replicated text, which should be removed. NWT also expects explicit reference to protection as shown below:
"Assist in creating a prosperous, environmentally sustainable and economically vibrant County through an adequate supply of all minerals to assist in economic growth both locally and nationally. Provide sufficient land to enable a steady and adequate supply of minerals over the plan period whilst also ensuring the protection and enhancement of Nottinghamshire's natural and historic heritage resources."

SO6: Protecting and enhancing natural assets
NWT strongly support this Strategic Objective.

Question 2 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
SP1 Sustainable Development this requires updating with reference to the new NPPF. For the avoidance of doubt, NWT recommends the minor addition below:
"When considering development proposals the Council ..... will work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be permitted wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area, whilst ensuring that no irreplaceable environmental assert is lost or damaged"
Question 3 What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
NWT support Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision in principle and welcomes the explicit reference to the need for all proposed development whether new sites, extensions or unallocated proposals to be subject to the same robust environmental assessment. This is essential if sustainable development it to be achieved.

Question 4 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
NWT strongly support the principles of SP3 Biodiversity-led restoration, but have some reservations about the detail, in order to support the whole policy our comments are as follows:
We require the following addition of a 4th point to avoid potential misinterpretation of the Policy, as has been seen in recent applications:
"Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration
Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Project will be supported.
2. Where appropriate, schemes will be expected to demonstrate how restoration will contribute to the delivery of Water Framework Directive objectives.
3. Restoration schemes for allocated sites should be in line with the relevant Site Allocation Development Briefs contained within Appendix 3.
4. Proposed restoration schemes will be robustly assessed to ensure that they are not used to justify the unacceptable loss of irreplaceable habitats, or habitats that cannot be reasonable replaced within a generation in terms of diversity and quality.

Para 3.17 includes a specific reference to floodplains which seems incongruous and also does not provide a comprehensive picture of what might be achieved, hence we would recommend the following minor amendments:
" The restoration of all types of mineral voids offers a significant opportunity for the establishment or re-establishment of priority habitats, often on a large-scale, and for providing re-created linkages between fragmented blocks of specific habitat types, thereby strengthening and enhancing ecological networks."

Para 3.22.contains another slightly incongruous reference to wetland schemes and could be amended as follows:
"Minerals extraction, particularly sand and gravel extraction in the Trent Valley, but also the extraction of resources in other parts of the County, can contribute significantly towards meeting these targets and add to the success of existing priority habitat restoration schemes. Restoration schemes should be carefully considered so that they can deliver as much LBAP priority habitat as possible and that such habitats are appropriate to the relevant National Character Area. Applicants are therefore encouraged to engage in early discussions with the County Council and other appropriate bodies in relation to restoration proposals."
Para 3.24 sandstone - add wood pasture to the list of priority habitats.
Para 3.26. "LBAP priority habitats in areas where the extraction of clay, gypsum and coal takes place should reflect those habitats occurring in the vicinity and will differ depending on locality. More generally, other habitats, including Ponds and Hedgerows, can be incorporated into most restorations independent of location, but it should be noted that to be of value to wildlife, ponds should generally be less than 300sqm in size. It is also expected that Eutrophic Standing Waters (lakes )may be created as a result of quarrying, although this habitat should be minimised as far as possible in favour of the other habitat types listed above, as there is already sufficient habitat of this kind in the County..
An explanatory paragraph is required in this Policy text to make it explicit that long term restoration management of re-create habitats is required, as for most habitats meaningful outcomes cannot be achieved in 5 years. This is reflected later in the MLP but needs explaining in this section. There should also be reference to the fact that extended aftercare and long term protection of restored sites is required, as the restoration cannot be used as a partial justification for the mineral scheme, if the habitats will not exist in the long term. Sadly, cases such as this have been seen in recent years in the County, where the habitat has been lost once the aftercare has ceased, or in one case, threatened by development before it has even been restored, but where the mineral has already been extracted.

Question 5 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change
NWT support the principles of seeking to reduce greenhouse gases produced by mineral extraction processes, but we believe this policy should include a target to reduce extraction of hydrocarbons in the County in order to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Question 6 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
NWT supports much of this Policy but the text requires mention of impacts on habitat from NOx and other forms of Nitrogen that are specifically derived from transport associated with mineral development. The designation of part of Nottinghamshire as a SNAP (Shared Nitrogen Action Plan) area by NE is very pertinent in this regard and should be referenced.
Question 7 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
NWT broadly support Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment, particularly the explicit need for protection of habitats and species as listed in paras 3.47 and 3.48.
The following amendments are required to ensure consistency, particularly the removal of "as far as possible" which can be misinterpreted:
"3.49. It is therefore important to ensure that new minerals development is correctly managed and that no adverse impacts occur to designated sites at all levels ,or priority habitats and species. Policy SP3 promotes a biodiversity-led restoration approach which seeks to maximise the biodiversity gains resulting from the restoration of mineral sites."
Further to my substantive previous submissions on the distinction between valuable agricultural soils and the need for them to be in agricultural use and what that use may comprise, NWT strongly welcome the recognition that appropriate restoration can safeguard those soils whilst still creating priority habitats. This is explained later in the Draft MLP but should also be cross-referenced here as follows in para 3.60:
.3.60. Minerals development often involves large areas of land ........County's finite agricultural soils. However, appropriate management and restoration of mineral workings can secure the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils, and the re-creation of priority habitats can protect those soils for the future, particularly from the damage caused by arable practices, whilst ensuring that the soils are available should they be needed for future food production"
The damage and loss of soils through intensive farming practices has been recognised as a serious issue at a national and global level. Reversion of land to grassland, and other habitats, from arable use has been extensively promoted by successive governments and supported through substantial public funds. The irreparable damage that occurs to soils from excessive tillage, addition of mineral nutrients, over-cropping and loss of organic matter from arable practices is a serious problem and restoration of mineral sites provides an opportunity to secure those soils for the future by their protection under habitats such as grassland and woodland. Soils under BAP priority habitat can also be effective in capturing CO2, rather than losing it, as happens under arable cropping.
Para 3.67 requires specific reference as follows:
"The majority of minerals are transported by road due to the relatively short distances to local or regional markets. Minerals proposals therefore need to take into account the likely impacts upon both the local highway network and nearby communities and sensitive habitats arising from increased levels of traffic. Potential impacts could include congestion, road safety, noise, dust, and vehicle emissions. ...etc"

Question 11 What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
NWT recognises that the MPA must make adequate provision for minerals supply and so supports the principle of Policy MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision but not all the detail. Many of the comments below relate to our concerns about the details of sites, rather than the principle of the proposed allocation per se. We strongly welcome that our recommendations for priority habitats have been included in the Development Briefs, and the use of such Briefs is to be wholly supported. There are some allocations, however, that cause concern in principle and these are clearly highlighted in the following text.
Where NWT objects to the details, rather than the principle of the proposed extensions, further details that NWT considers are pertinent to the Development Brief and are of concern are highlighted in bold italics, in most cases our objection to the allocation would be removed by the resolution of these issues. Lack of objection for an allocation, does not, of course, presuppose that we would support an application, as our position would be based on the results of detailed EIA.

MP2l Bawtry Road West - Object to details
NWT note that the footprint of this proposed extension allocation is quite small, but would take at least 5-7 years to be worked and is in close proximity to both the Slaynes Lane LWS, Rugged Butts LWS and Units 1 and 2 of the Idle Washlands SSSI. Whilst the extension appears to be on arable land, UK BAP/Sn41 habitats may be present within or in proximity to the proposed site boundary, which could be subject to direct or indirect impacts, including noise, dust and NOx effects. The effects of further dewatering in this area on the groundwater-dependent LWS and SSSIs, the newly restored groundwater-dependent habitats at Newington Quarry and surface water effects on the nearby woodland should be particularly robustly assessed. Protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and the ditches within the proposed site boundary, and in this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, particularly given that the current approved restoration scheme is mainly to species-poor pasture of limited ecological value and small, scattered copses. NWT note that no best and most versatile soils are present

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and welcomes the clear expectation in the Development Brief that this should be the case. We would expect, however, that the consideration of the extension should be an opportunity to review the restoration for the current site and to ensure that the whole scheme is properly restored to high value habitats, as the scheme appears to have developed in a piecemeal manner over several years as extensions have been granted. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.

MP2m Scrooby Thompson Land - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is close to a number of LWS, and in proximity to the Scrooby Top Quarry SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the Mattersey LWS complex, which may be affected by dewatering. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation appears to be mainly in arable use, but protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and ditches within the proposed allocation boundary, and in this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. NWT welcome the recognition in the Brief to the proximity of this site to Annexe 1 bird species and potential inclusion in the Sherwood pSPA. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and welcomes the explicit requirement in the Development Brief that this should primarily be the case. NWT recognises that some 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected within the restored site by being utilised under species-rich grassland which can be grazed and/or cut for hay. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.
MP2n Scrooby North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to Scrooby Sand Pits LWS, and in proximity to several other LWS around Mattersey and the Scrooby Top Quarry SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to Scrooby Sand Pits LWS, which may be affected by dewatering. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
Protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and the ditches within the proposed allocation boundary, and in this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. NWT welcome the recognition in the Brief to the proximity of this site to Annexe 1 bird species and potential inclusion in the Sherwood pSPA. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement LWS habitats nearby.

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and welcomes the explicit requirement in the Development Brief that this should primarily be the case. NWT recognises that a small area of 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected within the restored site by being utilised under species-rich grassland, which can be grazed and/or cut for hay. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.

MP2o Langford Lowfields south and west - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to Langford Lowfields LWS and the River Trent at Holme LWS, whilst The Ness LWS is across the River. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under both arable and permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows, ditches and the Slough Dyke within the proposed allocation boundary, and also the adjacent River Trent, including bats, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT welcome the stated aim that this restoration would be biodiversity-led, as we would expect. But, the location of Langford West immediately adjacent to the River Trent provides an important opportunity to secure natural flood risk management and biodiversity outcomes through the re-connection of the Trent to its floodplain, channel braiding and the creation of wet grassland floodplain /grazing marsh. It is therefore disappointing that the Brief states that there would be no excavation within 45m of the Trent and would expect this opportunity to be properly examined. NWT would expect the proposed habitats would be appropriate for NWT's Trent Valley Living Landscape Area and for the Trent and Belvoir Vales NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount.

MP2p Langford Lowfields North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to Langford Lowfields LWS, includes the Horse Pool at Collingham LWS and is immediately across the Trent from the Cromwell Pits LWS. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under mainly arable with small areas of permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows, and the adjacent River Trent, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT welcome that this restoration would be biodiversity-led, as we would expect. The location of Langford North in a meander of the Trent provides an important opportunity to secure natural flood risk management and biodiversity outcomes through the re-connection of the Trent to its floodplain, channel braiding and the creation of wet grassland floodplain /grazing marsh, so we would expect this opportunity to be properly examined. The proposed habitats would be appropriate for NWT's Trent Valley Living Landscape Area and for the Trent and Belvoir Vales NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount.
MP2q East Leake North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is immediately adjacent to the Sheepwash Brook Wetlands LWS. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to this site, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under arable use, but protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees and hedgerows along the boundary, the ditches and the Sheepwash Brook, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, with habitats appropriate for the Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire Wolds NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount. NWT recognises that some 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected for the future within the restored site by being utilised under species-rich grassland, which can be grazed and/or cut for hay.

NWT are surprised by the withdrawal of Besthorpe Eastern Extension as an allocation , as this allocation has the potential to achieve restoration benefits over the current land use, and also to achieve better public access to a wildlife-rich landscape.
New Site Allocations
MP2r Botany Bay - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is close to a number of LWS, including the Chesterfield Canal which runs along the boundary, Daneshill Lakes LNR and LWS and also in proximity to the Sutton and Lound Gravel Pits SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the Chesterfield Canal and the SSSI. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation appears to be mainly in arable use, but protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and ditches within the proposed allocation boundary, and the adjacent canal and woodlands, including bats and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland may be associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT would expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led and so we welcome the explicit reference to this in the Brief. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA ,therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions. But it is also important to be explicit that large open water bodies (lakes) are not a priority habitat in this area, as there is already a sufficient amount. NWT recognises that some 3a soils may be present, but this should not compromise the need for a biodiversity-led restoration, as these soils can be protected for the future within the restored site by being utilised eg. under species-rich grassland, which can be grazed and/or cut for hay.

MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis - Object in principle
NWT note that an application is already under consideration for this proposed allocation area, thus our comments are consistent with our response to that application. This proposed allocation includes or is immediately adjacent to the Barton Flash LWS, Barton Pond and Drain LWS, Brandshill Wood LWS, Brandshill Grassland LWS and Brandshill Marsh LWS and in close proximity to the Attenborough Gravel Pits SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The latter is particularly pertinent to the closest LWS. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under extensive permanent pasture, species- rich grassland, and arable use, and protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species are present in features such as the mature trees, hedgerows and woodlands, the ditches and ponds, and the nearby River Trent, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing and also a number of protected bird species. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT fundamentally object to this allocation, on the basis of the substantive impacts to LWS, SN 41 Habitats of Principal Importance and Species of Principal Importance, and protected species. The high quality of the existing habitats present in this proposed allocation renders it an unsuitable site for a new quarry.

Were the site to be allocated, NWT expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, with habitats appropriate for NWT's Trent Valley Living Landscape Area and for the Trent Valley Washlands NCA, and note that our previous comments on suitable habitats have been included in the brief However, explicit reference should be made to the fact that large, open water bodies are not a priority habitat in this area as there is already a sufficient amount.

NWT consider that the scheme as proposed would involve an overall reduction in BAP habitat and the loss and degradation of a number of LWS and features used by protected species.


Question 12 What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?
MP3g Scrooby Top North - Object to details
NWT note that this proposed allocation is in proximity to the Scrooby Sand Pits LWS and Serlby Park Golf Course LWS, and appears to include the Scrooby Top Quarry SSSI. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The impacts of hydrological changes may be particularly pertinent as would the impacts of Nitrogen deposition on species-rich grasslands. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed.
The proposed allocation is under mainly arable use, with some permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees and hedgerows along the boundary and the ditches including bats, herptiles and badgers. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. NWT welcome the recognition in the Brief to the proximity of this site to protected Annexe 1 bird species and potential inclusion in the Sherwood ppSPA. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

NWT note the proposal that restoration should include agricultural and biodiversity-led elements. We expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, but this may include extensively managed, ecologically-rich agricultural habitats, such as acidic grassland or species-rich neutral grassland which could be grazed and/or cut for hay, as long as their long term management can be secured. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for NWT's Idle and Ryton Living Landscape Area and for the Humberhead Levels NCA, therefore NWT welcomes that the list of priority habitats is as requested in our previous submissions.

MP3e Bestwood II East and MP3f Bestwood II North - Object to both in principle
NWT note that an application is already under consideration for the proposed allocation area of Bestwood 2 East, thus our comments are consistent with our response to that application. These proposed allocations are entirely located within Longdale Plantation LWS and in close proximity to Longdale Heath LWS. There is therefore the potential for major direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for habitat loss, noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. Consequently, NWT fundamentally object to these allocations, as the loss of a LWS on this scale is unacceptable.
The proposed allocations are entirely within a LWS, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in the woodland, including bats, birds, herptiles and badgers. Were these sites to be allocated, any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats adjacent. NWT therefore welcome that the habitats listed in our previous submissions have been included in the Brief, but this does not indicate our support for these allocations.


Question 13 What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand over the plan period?
MP4 Crushed Rock (limestone) provision
NWT supports this policy in principle, particularly the requirement in para 4.58 to review the restoration scheme to ensure that it is consistent with Policy SP2-Biodiversity Led Restoration. As previously submitted, NWT would expect the priority habitats to be appropriate for the Southern Magnesian Limestone NCA and our Magnesian Limestone Living Landscape Area, ie.:
* Calcareous grassland
* Ash-dominated woodland
* Streams, ponds
* Hedgerows

Question 15 What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?
MP6c Woodborough Lane - Support
NWT does not object to the proposed allocation of the Woodborough Lane site in principle, as the area does not appear to either contain or be in proximity to any SSSIs, LWS, LNR or Ancient Woodlands. There may, however, be BAP/Sn 41 HPI or SPI present, and there may also be the potential for indirect impacts on important habitats or species which would require rigorous assessment of impacts. It is essential that at this stage the requirement for biodiversity-led restoration is explicit and the expected habitats are clearly identified, so NWT welcomes their inclusion in the Development Brief.

Question 16 What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?
Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) - Object in principle
NWT note that this proposed allocation includes the Cowtham House Arable LWS and the Shire Dyke LWS within the boundary, and is also in close proximity to the Staple Lane Ditch LWS, Grange Lane Drain LWS and Hawton Tip Grasslands LWS. There is therefore the potential for direct and indirect impacts to these sites, which should be fully assessed, including for noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology. The impacts of hydrological changes may be particularly pertinent to the closest LWS as would the impacts of Nitrogen deposition on species-rich grasslands. The impacts of habitat loss on Sn41/BAP habitats within the site boundary should also be assessed rigorously. If the LWS cannot be removed from within the site boundary or shown to be unaffected by the working area, NWT object to this allocation.
The proposed allocation is under mainly arable use, with some permanent pasture, so protected and /or UK BAP/Sn41 species may be present in features such as the mature trees and hedgerows along the boundary, the ditches and the Shire Dyke and its associated grassland buffer, including bats, badgers, amphibians and riparian mammals. In this area the farmland is associated with red list BOCC farmland birds such as skylark, grey partridge and lapwing. Efforts should be made to retain as many existing habitat features as possible, no LWS should be lost, and any scheme should ensure substantive net gain in biodiversity, and should complement the LWS habitats nearby.

The Development Brief states that restoration would involve "the return of land to agriculture and nature conservation corridors" . NWT expect the restoration to be biodiversity-led, with the majority of the area restored to high value priority habitats, not least to outweigh the restoration of the current and nearby gypsum quarry sites, where large areas have been restored to arable land of low wildlife value. There would be a role for extensively managed, ecologically-rich, agricultural habitats, such as species-rich calcareous grassland, but this is only if the long term management can be secured. The proposed habitats should be appropriate for the Trent and Belvoir Vales NCA, therefore we welcome the inclusion of the habitats listed in or previous submissions.
Question 17 What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the plan period?
NWT support the policy in general, noting that any future allocations/extensions would have to be compliant with the policies in this MLP and with particular regard to the fact this area falls within the ppSPA , with the need for cumulative assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment that follows from that.

Question 18 What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?
NWT has concerns that the text does not explain the importance of the remaining scarce fragments of calcareous habitats that are found on the limestone resource in the west of the County and that the protection, management and expansion of these should be a prerequisite of any new building stone scheme. Any new quarry should add to the strength of the ecological network for calcareous grassland and woodland, not detract from it. The proximity of SSSs and many LWS to Whitwell and Creswell underlines this point.
Question 19 What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?
NWT has concerns that the text does not explain the importance of the remaining scarce fragments of calcareous habitats that are found on the limestone resource in the west of the County and that the protection, management and expansion of these should be a prerequisite of any new building stone scheme. Any new quarry should add to the strength of the ecological network for calcareous grassland and woodland, not detract from it.

Question 20 What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the plan period?
MP11 Coal - In the absence of Development Briefs, the policy should include specific reference that any coal development should contribute substantively to priority habitat restoration and re-creation in accordance with the appropriate NCA and NWT Living Landscape (LL) areas as follows:
Sherwood NCA (Sherwood Heathlands LL area): lowland heath, acid grassland, small ponds (especially for amphibians), marsh, oak-birch woodland, wood pasture.
Southern Magnesian Limestone (Magnesian Limestone LL area): calcareous grassland, ash-dominated woodland, streams, ponds, hedgerows
Coal Measures (Erewash Valley LL area): wet grassland/floodplain grazing marsh, species-rich neutral grassland (meadows), ponds, rivers and streams, oak-dominated woodland, acid grassland/lowland heath, hedgerows, ditches.

This could be included in the justification text as above and also referenced in the Policy wording as below:
"...Reworking colliery spoil tips/lagoons
4. Applications will be supported for the reworking of colliery spoil tips/lagoons where the environmental and economic benefits of the development, including addressing the likelihood of spontaneous combustion and substantial environmental improvement of the site, outweigh the environmental or amenity impacts of the development or the loss of established landscape and wildlife features. All such development should result in the re-creation of priority BAP/Sn41 habitats appropriate to the relevant NCA as listed in the text in para xx."

Question 21 What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
MP 11 hydrocarbons - NWT agree that the wording of the policy should make clear the need for robust environmental impact assessment at all stages of hydrocarbon exploration and extraction.
NWT consider that there should be an explicit statement that hydrocarbon extraction should reduce in order reduce the emissions that contribute to climate change.
NWT also consider that with regard to the need for environmental protection , there should be a presumption against unconventional hydrocarbon developments . Shale gas extraction is relatively untested in the UK, a very different working environment to the US, and in the last 2 years where it has occurred it has been demonstrated that operators are unable to robustly and consistently meet the requirements of their planning conditions, which have been imposed to protect the environment. Therefore NWT cannot support this Policy as it stands.
Further detail in the accompanying text is required to cover the following issues:
Oil - Specific consideration is needed for the requirement of new oil extraction schemes to result in enhanced priority habitats, as in some cases the relatively small scale of such scheme, but large number of sites, has lead to incremental impacts and degradation of habitats over several years, which has led to an overall loss of biodiversity when considered in the round. This should be recognised in any future provision through a robust assessment of likely cumulative effects on biodiversity.
CMM - given the location of most suitable seams/former mine sites, specific reference should be made to the potential for disturbance to nightjar and woodlark and need to assess the cumulative effects of nitrogen emissions from burning CMM on sensitive heathland habitats.
CBM and Shale Gas - The relatively unproven nature of these technologies when applied to the UK should predicate a highly precautionary approach, particularly given the unpredictable nature of the behaviour of the sandstone geology of the County which overlays much of the northern shale beds. This unpredictability is evidenced both by deep-mine accidents in Sherwood in recent history where unexpected pockets of methane have been encountered in fractured stone and also by the above-ground subsidence effects of planned mining activity, which do not always appear to happen as predicted by the industry. Both CBM, and Shale Gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing have the potential for far-reaching impacts on the quantity and quality of surface and groundwaters and through effects of noise and vibration, which may impact valuable habitats and sensitive species. Robust and very precautionary assessment is therefore required of any such schemes.

Question 22 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local amenity?

NWT strongly support this Policy in principle but believe that the following should be added to the list:
" ...loss of greenspace , this is significant impact on amenity for local people, and loss can be contrary to the needs to support good health and wellbeing in local communities"
Question 25 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?

NWT very much welcome and support the thrust of this policy and note that many of our previous comments have been incorporated into the policy wording and supporting text. There some matters however that still need further explanation to ensure that there is no ambiguity in their interpretation.

"5.49. Local Sites are designated at a local level and include Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) and Local Geological Sites (LGSs). Whilst designated at a local level, these sites are of at least County ecological value according to criteria adopted by all the Nottinghamshire LPAs and the MPA. Some may also meet SSSI designation criteria but have not been designated, as only a representative suite of habitats are designated as SSSIs even though others may qualify. Some, but not all, Ancient woodlands are designated as LWSs within Nottinghamshire and are considered to be an irreplaceable habitat. Together, these designated sites form part of the country's or County's ? irreplaceable natural capital and the Minerals Local Plan will contribute towards their protection and encourage and support opportunities for enhancement."

It is essential to explain this in the supporting text as we regularly see this sort of statement misinterpreted as LWS being of only "local" ie. district level value, rather than of County importance.
NWT strongly support the text of paragraph 5.52 which provides a much welcome clarification of how "outweighing" benefits, or otherwise, should be assessed.
.

In para 5.54. add "Where compensation is required, this should ensure that there is no net loss of habitat, provide like for like replacements of habitat (recognising that newly created habitats take many years to reach the quality and diversity of well established habitats.) and make up for any lost connections between habitats. Where significant impacts on species are predicted, compensation schemes should also provide overall habitat improvements, in terms of quality or area, in comparison to the habitat that is
being lost. Use of the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric may be helpful in undertaking assessments to determine the compensatory habitat required "

Update paragraph 5.57. Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping has been substantially completed for approximately 75% of Nottinghamshire, including the Trent Valley. The study should be used to help inform proposals for mineral workings and restoration.

Para 5.58. "In order to assess biodiversity impacts fully, applicants will be required to carry out ecological surveys as part of their application in order that a robust ecological impacts assessment can be undertaken. "


Question 29 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM8: Cumulative impact?

NWT support this Policy in principle but there should be a specific reference to cumulative impacts on habitats and species.



Question 31 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?

Safeguarding is obviously important but should also be underpinned by robust science and a reasonable approach, in order to prevent interpretation that prevents restoration of a wide range of wetland habitats across large areas of the County. NWT therefore welcomes the recognition that nature conservation after-uses can be compatible with safeguarding, but in reality, we have sometimes found this to be used in a simplistic way, therefore we require the addition of the following:

"5.108. This policy does not preclude any specific forms of restoration or after-use but seeks to ensure that aviation safety is fully considered and addressed through appropriate consultation, avoidance and mitigation. Advice Notes on the safeguarding of aerodromes have been produced by the Airport Operators' Association and General Aviation Awareness Council. It is important that safeguarding representations are made on the basis of an accurate assessment of the likely effects of risks such as bird-strike depending on the type and use of the airfield, as this changes the likelihood of hazards occurring."


Question 32 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM11: Planning obligations?
NWT welcome this Policy in principle but consider that it requires further detail on how long the Obligations should remain in force, so that there can be certainty over the protection of restored habitats in the long term

Question 33 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

NWT strongly support the principles of this Policy and have worked with NCC for a long time on the concepts that inform the Policy. We agree with the Policy wording with the exception of the following:


"3. All applications should normally be accompanied by a detailed restoration plan, this is particularly important where the potential for the restored habitats is being used as part of the case for the acceptability of the scheme. It is possible that there may be some exceptional circumstances where it is impracticable to submit full restoration details at the planning Stage, but this must be robustly justified, and proposals should include:

a) An overall concept plan with sufficient detail to demonstrate that the scheme is feasible in both technical and economic terms and is consistent with the County Council's biodiversity-led restoration strategy; and
b) Illustrative details of contouring, landscaping and any other relevant information as appropriate."

"..Aftercare
9. Restoration proposals will be subject to a minimum five year period of aftercare. Where proposals or elements of proposals, such as features of biodiversity interest, require a longer period of management the proposal will only be permitted if it includes details of the period of extended aftercare and how this will be achieved. Where the creation of new priority habitats is being used as part of the case for the acceptability of the scheme, it is essential that an extended aftercare period of at least 20 years must be secured, otherwise the justification for the scheme cannot be accepted. "


Para 5.124. Most mineral workings are on agricultural land. In general where the best and
most versatile land is taken for mineral extraction, it is important that the potential for land to be returned to an agricultural after-use be maintained through appropriate landform and soil profiles. It is not necessary, however, for the land to be returned to agricultural use per se, and the creation of priority habitats will better protect and conserve the soils in the long term".


Question 34 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM13: Incidental
mineral extraction?

NWT support this Policy in principle, but it requires explicit reference to the fact that " in most cases such applications will require the same levels of EIA as primary extraction applications."

Question 36 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM15: Borrow pits
NWT require the addition of a specific reference to the requirement for proper EcIA and biodiversity-led restoration in order to offset the impacts of borrow pit use..
Question 38 What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM17: Mineral exploration?

Seismic surveys can impact protected and sensitive bird and mammal species, particularly where undertaken in the breeding season, therefore the following is required:

"5.161. Most Seismic surveys have little environmental impact. However, noise and vibration can raise concerns when carried out in sensitive areas, particularly where sensitive fauna are present. This is especially the case when shot hole drilling is used and/or where surveys are carried out over a prolonged period. A particular concern is the interference to archaeological remains. Operators are encouraged to contact the County Council's archaeologists and ecologist prior to undertaking surveys. It is particularly important to ensure that species protected by law would not be affected by noise, vibration or other effects."

Glossary
LWS should be included in the glossary with a reference to the Site Selection handbook, as this is an area often poorly understood by applicants.

I write in response to your consultation on the new Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan.
The City Council have considered the amount of mineral resource the County considers is required within the plan period to 2036, the range of planning policies against which future minerals development will be assessed and the site specific allocations.
Strategic Objectives
It is welcomed that the strategic objectives have been broadened out in this draft version of the plan to minimise all adverse impacts of development, including on environmental and heritage features.
MP2s Mill Hill
It is noted that there is a proposed allocation at Barton in Fabis known as MP2s Mill Hill for approx. 3 million tonnes of sand and gravel. There is a current planning application being determined by both Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council for this proposed allocation as the planning application (17/00930/PMFUL3) site straddles the boundaries between the two mineral authorities. Approx. 11 hectares of the site is within the City boundary which equates to approx. 12% of the whole proposed site.
If this site is to be pursued then it will need to be fully justified and assessed against all alternatives to determine the most sustainable pattern on mineral extraction across the plan area over the plan period. This will include fully assessing the potential negative impacts on flooding, the historic environment, landscape, the green belt, air and water quality, biodiversity assets including the nearby SSSI at Home Pitt, highway network, etc. It is noted that the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal for this site has a number of unknowns and some significant negative scores for many of the SA objectives.
Major Infrastructure, Housing and Commercial Developments
It would be useful if the document could make reference to major infrastructure projects that may have an impact on the area such as HS2 and any implications for mineral resource. It is noted that the plan acknowledges that there is to be major housing and commercial development in the future within the area but it would also be useful if any implications for the level of resource required is fully explored and explained.
MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals
It is considered that the Policy MP12: Hydrocarbon Minerals appears to be in general conformity with the Revised NPPF 2018 although it may be worth further explanation within the justification text how any approved site at each stage (exploration, appraisal and production and later restoration) will be monitored.
There may be an opportunity for the County to consider incorporating a similar approach to Kirklees Council where they have a proposed a policy on the production of hydrocarbons in their Kirklees Publication Draft Local Plan - Strategy and Policies. The policy (PLP 42, page 159) sets out that for the production of hydrocarbons, consideration, amongst other things, will be given to "where a proposal demonstrates that it will have a net zero impact on climate change".