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

I think that this is not a policy.
I think that this is the most damaging proposal we have ever seen in this country. You are not agreeing to protect anything that is precious to us.
You are simply agreeing to discuss it and then saying that the needs of the shale extractors will take precedence.
You can not redirect an ancient right of way. It is a 'right' of way. We have the right to protect it and will do so.

NSDC is supportive.

Coddington Parish Council supports the draft policy.

Support

Notts Footpaths Preservation Society support the wording offered.

CEMEX support the principle of improving public access subject to the obvious constraints of private land ownership

CAGE strongly supports the policy on public access. It would like an addition to the final statement of the Vision:

The quality of life and health of those living, working in, or visiting Nottinghamshire will be protected and opportunities supporting healthy lifestyle choices will be promoted.

Increased HGV traffic flows can be a significant deterrent to traffic on foot, cyclists and riders, preventing access to amenities. Large minerals sites (both operational and after 'restoration' to water) can represent barriers to the movement of people as well as to wildlife. Although officially 'temporary', quarry lifetimes can be long in relation to the lifetimes of people. Staged and early grants of public rights-of-way are one small way they can pay back the local community for the adverse impacts they cause.

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 Draft Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for consulting Rushcliffe Borough Council on the Draft Minerals Local Plan and supporting Draft Minerals Local Plan Interim Sustainability Report. Having read the documents, please accept the following responses to selected questions which are pertinent to minerals developments in Rushcliffe.
Draft Minerals Local Plan
Q1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) broadly supports the overarching vision and welcomes the additional paragraph which requires mineral developments are designed, located and operated to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised.
However, as stated within our previous representation on the Issues and Options Minerals Local Plan, the vision should not prioritise proximity to major markets, growth areas and sustainable transport nodes over other considerations. Whilst the proximity of the resource to the market is important, the location of minerals development should also consider environmental constraints (including impacts on the natural environment and local communities). Consequently the second paragraph should read:
"Within geological and wider environmental constraints, minerals development will be concentrated in locations that offer..."
When telephoning, please ask for :
John King
Telephone no :
0115 9148257
Email:
jjking@rushcliffe.gov.uk
Our Reference :
950.0
Your Reference :
Date :
27 September 2018
Furthermore, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (avoid, mitigate and last resort compensate), the plan should prioritise sites that avoid adverse impacts on the environment rather than mitigate or compensate through appropriate working, restoration and after-use. The fourth paragraph should read:
"All minerals workings will contribute towards a 'greener Nottinghamshire' by ensuring that the County's diverse environmental and historic assets are protected, maintained and enhanced through the sensitive selection of minerals sites, appropriate working, restoration and after use."
Q2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Policy SP1 and the supporting text should be amended to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the revised NPPF (2018). Specifically Part 3 of the policy and part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
Q3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
RBC supports the prioritisation of extending existing sites as set out in Policy SP2 part 1) b) and the need in Part 2 to demonstrate that the avoidance of adverse social, economic and environmental impacts have been prioritised. The Council is not convinced however that these requirements have been equally applied to the selection of the mineral allocations, specifically the selection of MP2s Mill Hill as this is a new sand and gravel quarry which the SA, identifies as being significantly constrained by a wide range of environmental issues (landscape and visual amenity, biodiversity, flood risk, agricultural land and degraded air quality). It is also in close proximity of Barton in Fabis.
Q4: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
RBC supports the prominence and importance given to restoration within the draft plan and Policy SP3 in particular. The specific reference to the Local BAP and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Project is welcomed, however the justification does not include an explanation of the mapping project and how it should be used to inform restoration. Rather the text refers to landscape scale restoration, National Character Areas and priority habitats which the opportunity mapping project brings together.
Q8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
RBC welcomes policy SP7and its supporting justification which highlights the need to consider the impact of infrastructure, which is required to extract the mineral, upon the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, the policy (or supporting justification) should ensure that if the openness is harmed during operation and restoration, this is inappropriate and can only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Harm to the Green Belt's openness should be given substantial weight, and development should only be permitted if this harm to openness, Green Belt purposes and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. These considerations will include the need for the mineral, the existence of alternative sources outside
the Green Belt, and the measures undertaken to reduce the harm to the Green Belt and its purposes.
This approach should be applied and explained where allocations are proposed in the Green Belt.
Q10: What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?
RBC supports the identified levels of demand and subsequent provision of minerals (within Policy MP1) based on the Local Aggregates Assessment average 10 year data and the provision of 7 year land bank for sand and gravel and sandstone, or 10 years land bank for crushed rock. This approach complies with the NPPF.
Q11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
East Leake North - MP2q
The extension of the existing sand and gravel quarry at East Leake is not opposed in principle. This however is subject to the maintenance of the existing hydrological conditions that maintain the water levels of Sheepwash Brook and the condition of the Local Wildlife Sites to the South of Sheepwash Brook.
Mill Hill - MP2s
RBC has serious concerns regarding the proposed sand and gravel allocation at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s).
Green Belt and Landscape Impacts
As the site is within the Green Belt, and would require significant infrastructure to transport the mineral up Mill Hill to the loading area adjacent to Green Street, there is likely to be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the Green Belt purpose which safeguards the countryside from encroachment. This concern is confirmed by the landscape appraisal of the allocation, which according to the SA and Site Assessment Methodology document determines the landscape impacts to be very negative. Post-restoration, the landscape impacts are considered to remain very negative.
Loss of Rights of Way and Impacts on Visual Amenity
Impacts on visual amenity are exacerbated by the number of rights of way that cross the site, including a bridleway and footpath to Barton in Fabis. The diversion of these routes and the enjoyment of them will be significantly affected whilst the quarry is in operation. The Trent Valley Way, an important regional trail, is on the opposite bank of the River Trent, within the Attenborough Nature Reserve. The enjoyment of this route is also likely to be affected.
Impacts on Nature Conservation Assets
Located within the Trent Valley, the site includes or is immediately adjacent to the Barton Flash Local Wildlife Site (LWS), Barton Pond and Drain LWS, Brandshill Wood LWS, Brandshill Grassland LWS and Brandshill Marsh LWS. It is also in close proximity to Attenborough Gravel
Pits and Holme Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest, and several more LWSs including Clifton Fox Covert, Burrows Farm Grassland and Clifton Wood. Whilst restoration would include the creation of 62ha of priority habitat, the SA Report concludes that the allocation would still involve an overall reduction in BAP habitat and the loss and degradation of a number of LWSs and features used by protected species. The overall net reduction in priority habitat is a significant constraint.
Concerns regarding the surveys of protected and priority species have been raised, specifically Barn Owls which nest in the vicinity of the site. Given the known presence of this species, further surveys should be undertaken to establish the importance of the site for this species and whether breeding birds or their young would be disturbed (which is contrary to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).
Where such ecological impacts occur, in accordance with paragraph 175 of the NPPF, the 'mitigation hierarchy' should be applied. This favours avoidance (alternative sites) rather than mitigation or compensation (as is occurring here through restoration) as a last resort. If compensation would not avoid significant harm (as is the case with this allocation), the NPPF permits the refusal of development. As such the direct loss of LWS should be avoided and adequate avoidance and mitigation measures (such as buffers) put in place to ensure LWS and SSSIs in the vicinity are not adversely affected by noise, dust or changes in ground water quality and levels.
Transportation of Mineral
Whilst the site is located in close proximity of Nottingham, a significant local market for sand and gravel, and can easily access the M1 (via the A453), the quarried material from Mill Hill will be transported by road only. This conflicts with draft Policy SP5 part 1 which states that all mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. Given the site's location adjacent to the River Trent, and notwithstanding the increased disturbance to the river environment and neighbouring nature reserve, the transportation of the mineral by road clearly conflicts with this policy. Regarding the SA, we do not agree that the transportation by road should be scored +1 (slightly positive) against the 3rd SA Objective which promotes sustainable patterns of movement and the use of sustainable modes of transport. This should be neutral, as the location close to markets is negated by the transportation by HGVs.
Impacts on Air Quality
The transportation by road and generation of dust raise air quality concerns, and the cumulative impact of this allocation and the adjacent Clifton Pastures employment and housing strategic urban extension must be considered. SA objective 11 seeks to protect and improve air quality, however the SA Interim Report's assessment of Mill Hill (on page 131) does not examine the types and levels of pollution generated (only the number of lorry movements) and there is no considerations of cumulative effects with the neighbouring strategic urban extension. The only mitigation measures proposed is dust suppression.
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by air quality assessments. These assessments should consider the air quality impact as a result of operations including land movements, extraction of sand and gravel. As well as the impact on vehicle movements arriving and leaving the sites, this assessment should reference the IAQM guidance on Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning 2016 as well as LAQM Technical Guidance (TG16). The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Noise and Vibration
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by noise and vibration assessments. These assessments should be in line with MPG 11 - control of noise at surface mineral workings. The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Contaminated Land
Due to the potential for land surrounding the areas of mineral works being highlighted as potentially contaminated land I would recommend that at least a Phase 1 desk top study is submitted with any application to determine whether a source - receptor pathway exists.
Cumulative Effects
Given the proximity of the Clifton Urban Extension, other cumulative effects should also be considered within the SA.
Impacts on Local Residents
In addition to environmental impacts, the SA recognises that the site is in close proximity to settlements, especially Barton in Fabis which is approximately 130m to the south and west, and that during the operational phase there could be an adverse effect resulting from noise, dust and traffic. In terms of visual amenity, there would be a significant adverse change to views for residents on the northern edge of Barton in Fabis with windows facing the site and riverside properties to the eastern edge of the River Trent. It concludes that the allocation would have a very negative adverse effect on the SA's 14th objective which requires the protection and improvement of human health and quality of life.
Sustainability Appraisal
Overall the allocation has a negative effect on 8 of the 14 SA objectives (4 of which are very negative) and only scored positively against those objectives that other sites would equally perform positively against (meeting mineral needs and local employment). Only the allocation's close proximity to the A453 and Nottingham are unique to this site and this appears to have led to the site's allocation.
Paragraph 7.10 of the SA Interim Report states that twenty sand and gravel sites were assessed and it was found that those which scored most negatively in the operational period included Barton-in-Fabis (Mill Hill). This is a consequence not only of the issues above, but the site's location within flood zone 3, impact on the historic environment, loss of agricultural land, and loss of water quality (all of which result in a negative assessment in the SA). Furthermore the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity Study 2014, which has informed the SA, identifies the site as being High Environmental Sensitivity ('Red').
The negative impacts identified within the SA Interim Report have been recognised within the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment which justifies the allocation of the site (page 55). It states that:
"...whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, these become slight negative impacts in the long term. Taking
account of the contribution of this site to the provision of minerals in the Nottingham area, it is considered appropriate to include the proposal as an allocation in the Draft Minerals Plan."
RBC accepts that there should be geographical spread of minerals to meet needs across the county and beyond, however, given the significant adverse effects upon the environment and local community of Barton in Fabis, and the site's location within the Green Belt (which protects openness and Green Belt purposes), a detailed comparison of potential allocations within the Nottingham Area and appropriate weighting of the sites benefits and adverse effects is required in order to justify this site
Finally, the trajectory of mineral extraction from Mill Hill indicates that this will commence in 2019. This appears ambitious given that the submitted application has not yet been determined.
Q16: What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?
RBC supports policy MP7 and the retention of the Marblaegis Mine as a permitted site for Gypsum.
Development Management Policies
The last sentence of paragraph 5.4, which addresses EIAs, ends abruptly and the following page repeats Policy MP11 coal.
Q25: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
The wording of Part 1 a) should be amended as it refers to 'likely significant adverse effects on the integrity' of a European site. The Habitats Regulations however seek to prevent 'adverse effects on integrity', not 'likely significant adverse effects on integrity'. The assessment of 'likely significant effects' is undertaken as part of the HRA screening to determine whether an appropriate assessment of possible adverse effects is required
'Mitigated' should be changed to 'compensated'. Fully mitigated would imply adverse effects have been avoided/addressed, if so there are no adverse effects and development can proceed. If adverse effects cannot be avoided or mitigated, and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) are proven, compensation, not mitigation for the harm/loss must be provided.
Part b should be amended to reflect the NPPF which states that development likely to have an 'adverse effect' (not 'significant adverse effect') should not normally be permitted. This provides greater protection for SSSIs as any adverse effect on the interest of the site would be weighed against the benefits of the scheme, not just significant effects. The policy should also refer to the impacts on the network of SSSIs as whole, not just individual sites.
Part 3 c) should refer to the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Paragraph 5.46 should be amended to reflect the requirements of the habitats regulations - adverse effect on integrity - not significant effects (see comments above).
Paragraph 5.52 addresses effects on priority habitats and species, but has confused priority habitats as referred to in the Government circular 06/2005 (which covers European Sites that are priority habitats) and priority habitats within the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (which covers local habitats). The later receives less protection than the former and does not require agreement from the European Commission that imperative reasons of overriding public interest exist.
Q26: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
If harmful impacts can be mitigated then it is demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on character and distinctiveness. Consequently there would be no requirement for further mitigation. Policy DM5 should be amended as follows:
"Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on the character and distinctiveness of the landscape unless there is no available alternative and the need for development outweighs the landscape interest and the harmful impacts can be adequately mitigated;"
Supporting justification should require avoidance and mitigation measures where a development will have adverse impacts on character and distinctiveness. If these measures do not prevent residual adverse effects, then the assessment of alternative options and weighting of adverse impacts against the benefits of the proposal are engaged.
Policy DM5 Part 2 should be amended as follows:
"Mitigation and compensation measures that comprise landscaping, planting and restoration proposals should take account of the relevant landscape character policy area as set out in the Landscape Character Assessments covering Nottinghamshire and, where appropriate, the output of the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report."
Q28: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: Public access?
As a number of allocated sites and mineral reserves are in the Green Belt, the supporting justification for DM7 should cross refer to, and reflect, national Green Belt policy which states LPAs should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as the provision of access, opportunities for sport and recreation, enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.
Q33: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?
RBC supports the restoration policy. However, the supporting justification should refer to the delivery of the priority habitats and opportunity areas within the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Q37: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial development?
The supporting text should cross refer to Green Belt policy and explain that associated industrial developments are inappropriate within the Green Belt and that very special circumstances must be proven to exist in order to grant planning permission for these ancillary/associated activities.
We look forward to reviewing the next iteration of the Minerals Local Plan and supporting SA in due course.
This concludes Rushcliffe Borough Council's representation.
If you would like to discuss our comments on the emerging plan, please feel free to contact me.
Yours faithfully,

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for your consultation on the above document dated 26 July 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan
Natural England has reviewed the Draft Plan and has the following comments:
Supporting Documents
We advise that a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Minerals plan should be undertaken and submitted as a supporting document with the plan.
Paragraph 2.13 - We suggest that the abbreviation used for the Sherwood possible potential Special Protection Area (ppSPA) should be clarified. A potential Special Protection (pSPA) is a particular stage of the designation. The Sherwood area has not yet reached this stage yet and is still under consideration which is why it is known as a possible potential SPA.
Draft Vision
Natural England generally welcomes the vision. We are pleased to note that climate change has now been included within the 2nd paragraph, however we suggest that the wording should be clarified to explain that the impact on climate change should be mitigated not minimised to ensure that no environmental harm is allowed.
Strategic Objectives
SO6: Protecting & Enhancing Natural Assets - We are pleased to note that many of our comments made at the issues and options stage of the plan have been included within this objective, particularly those concerning net gain and delivery of biodiversity at a landscape scale.
SO8: Protecting Agricultural Soils - We are pleased to note that protection of Best & Most Versatile (BMV) land has been included in this objective.
SP2 Minerals Provision
Natural England welcomes paragraph 2 of the policy wording and paragraph 3.11 of the explanatory text which establishes that development must demonstrate avoidance of environmental impacts.
SP3 Biodiversity led restoration
Natural England strongly supports this policy which has incorporated many of our previous comments. We welcome paragraphs 3.12 & 3.14 which emphasise the importance of considering restoration at the outset of a proposal and as integral to the management of the whole extraction process and phasing.
We welcome the reference to the National Character Areas, Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets and the Water Framework Directive.
The paragraphs setting out the justification for the policy are also supported particularly the emphasis on the potential for mineral extraction to deliver high-quality habitat and creating valuable places for both wildlife and people and contributing to the delivery of landscape-scale conservation.
We welcome the guidance on Priority Habitats from paragraph 3.23 which help to ensure that the right restoration solutions are followed in appropriate locations.
We are also pleased to note that at paragraph 3.28 that agricultural restoration can still be "biodiversity led".
Net Gain - We suggest that your authority may want to consider including an additional paragraph on net gain in light of its emphasis in the 25 year Environment Plan "Green Futures" and the revised NPPF. Biodiversity net gain is a demonstrable gain in biodiversity assets as a result of a development project that may or may not cause biodiversity loss, but where the final output is an
overall net gain. Net gain outcomes can be achieved both on and/or off the development site and
should be embedded into the development process at the earliest stages. Metrics exist for calculating the amount of biodiversity required to achieve net gain. The most commonly used are variants of the Defra metric which calculates the biodiversity units required to achieve biodiversity net gain. The advantage of using a recognised metric to deliver net gain is that it provides a clear,
transparent and evidence-based approach to assessing a project's biodiversity impacts that can assist with "de-risking" a development through the planning process and contribute to wider placemaking.
Natural England would be happy to advise further on this approach and there is further information available on the Defra website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technicalpaper-
the-metric-for-the-biodiversity-offsetting-pilot-in-england
SP4 - Climate Change
Natural England welcomes this policy
SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
Natural England welcomes this policy which will ensure that mineral development will need to deliver a high standard of environmental protection and enhancement.
Nature Conservation - We agree with provisions regarding nature conservation within paragraphs
3.47 to 3.49 however reference should be made to the SA and HRA to ensure a full assessment of environmental effects has been carried out, including an assessment of alternatives, to ensure the most sustainable and least environmental sensitive sites are included in the Plan.
Geology - we welcome paragraph 3.50 regarding the protection of regionally important geological sites, however it should also refer to geological SSSI's which are of national importance.
Landscape -we welcome the reference to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment.
Agricultural land and soil - this policy should safeguard the long term capability of best and most versatile agricultural land.
Minerals Provision Policies
Natural England cannot comment on minerals provision specifically but only on its implications for the natural environment. We would wish to ensure that cross reference is made to the SA and HRA to ensure a full assessment of environmental effects has been carried out, including an assessment
of alternatives, to ensure the most sustainable and least environmental sensitive sites are included in the Plan.
(We have made comments on the individual development briefs below.)
Development Management Policies
DM2 Water resources and Flood Risk - Natural England would like to see this policy give greater emphasis to the protection of habitats from water related impacts resulting from mineral development and seek enhancement, especially for designated sites. We acknowledge that paragraph 5.32 of the explanatory text does mention water quality and environmental benefits but this should also appear in the policy wording.
We welcome paragraph 4 of the policy wording which includes flood plain reconnection and the further explanation in paragraph 5.32. However we suggest that the importance of working with natural processes should also be included. We have discussed this issue with the Environment Agency.
We acknowledge that SUDs has been included in the policy but suggest that opportunities for encouraging biodiversity gains within SUDs features should also be included.
DM3 Agricultural land and soil quality - Natural England advises that minerals plans should recognise that extraction can have an irreversible adverse (cumulative) impact on BMV land.
Avoiding the use of high grade land is the priority as mitigation is rarely possible, even with the best restoration standards. We acknowledge that this has been included within the policy wording.
Some sand and gravel sites cannot always avoid BMV soil as the quality of soils tends to be higher over sand/gravel sites. In such cases restoration of the highest standard should be the norm with the focus on maintaining healthy soils.
We support paragraph 5.39 that explains that biodiversity led-restoration schemes can be carried out on BMV land as long as the land and soil is maintained in a state capable of supporting agriculture in future, should the need arise.
We welcome paragraph 5.40 which makes provision for biodiversity gains within agricultural restoration.
DM4 Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity - Natural England supports this policy. In paragraph 1 of the policy wording reference should be made to the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) which should accompany the plan. Reference to the "mitigation hierarchy" in paragraph 2 of the policy is welcome. We also support the enhancement measures set
out in paragraph 3.
We acknowledge the requirement at 5.46 for a HRA at planning application stage but one would also be required for the local plan itself.
We welcome the reference to the Sherwood ppSPA at paragraph 5.47 and the risk based approach.
DM5 landscape character - Natural England welcomes this policy and the reference to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment. We suggest that reference should also be made to the National Character Areas (NCAs)
DM7 Public access - Natural England supports this policy.
DM12 Restoration and aftercare - Natural England plan would wish to ensure the high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites, including for agriculture, geodiversity, biodiversity, native woodland, the historic environment and recreation. We consider that the policy takes a strategic approach for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity
(linked to national and local targets) and green infrastructure.
We would however suggest that biodiversity net gain should be emphasised within the policy wording. We welcome reference to the Trent Valley "Bigger and Better" scheme which fits in with Council's biodiversity-led restoration approach.
Appendix 3 - Site Allocation Development briefs
MP2l - Bawtry Road west
We are pleased to note that potential indirect hydrological links to the Hatfield Moor SAC have been highlighted and we advise that a HRA would be required.
MP2n - Scrooby North
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2m - Scrooby Thompson Land
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2r - Botany Bay
Chesterfield Canal SSSI is adjacent to this site and it should be ensured that there is no adverse impact on interest features of this designation particularly in terms of water quality.
Please note it should be ppSPA not pSPA - it is a possible potential SPA
MP2p - Langford Lowfields North
We agree with the landscape scale approach to restoration across this site and the other sites in the Collingham and Besthorpe area and that this should be co-ordinated through the master-planning process to maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity gain.
MP2o - Langford Lowfields South and west
We agree with the landscape scale approach to restoration across this site and the other sites in the Collingham and Besthorpe area and that this should be co-ordinated through the master-planning process to maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity gain.
MP2s - Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis
Natural England welcomes the intention for a biodiversity led restoration for this site and acknowledge that the restoration targets are appropriate. The restoration offers the potential to deliver significant biodiversity enhancement through the creation of traditional floodplain wetland and grassland habitats. However we would need to be certain that all concerns about the effects on the current habitats have been considered first. There is a cluster of Local Wildlife Sites which form
an important ecological corridor beside the River Trent which would be directly affected by the proposed site. These Local Wildlife Sites make an important contribution to the wider ecological network which is a specific aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We would wish to ensure that biodiversity net gain could be achieved at each stage of the proposal.
We note that Holme Pit SSSI has been mentioned but we advise that the brief should stress the importance of carrying out a full hydrological investigation to ensure that there will be no impact on the water quality of the SSSI. This designated site is vulnerable to hydrological changes, impacts to water quality, siltation problems and potentially non-native species issues within the SSSI which
could result from mineral extraction. It is important that existing water flows in the Barton and other feeder drains are maintained to supply Holme Pit SSSI to avoid damage to the swamp and marginal plant communities.
We would expect the water quality from any quarrying development and restoration to be of a much higher standard than the current levels.
The brief also does not mention Attenborough Gravel Pits SSSI which may be affected by the allocation. The site's interest features are water dependant and may be sensitive to changes in water flow and quality. Therefore hydrological and hydrogeological assessments should be undertaken. Appropriate bird surveys should also be undertaken and an assessment made of the potential effects to birds associated with the SSSI.
MP2q - East Leake North
No comment
MP3e - Bestwood 2 East & MP3f - Bestwood 2 North
We welcome the biodiversity led approach and consider that the biodiversity targets are appropriate.
This site is in close proximity to areas which are important for nightjars and woodlarks that have been identified for inclusion in the Sherwood Forest ppSPA we therefore suggest that this should be considered within the brief for the site.
MP3g - Scrooby Top North
Natural England would need to understand how the current exposure of the Scrooby Top Quarry
geological SSSI would be protected during extension of this site.
MP6c Woodborough Lane
The site is likely to include Best & Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
MP7c - Bantycock quarry south
No comment
MP7c - Bantycock quarry south
No comment
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Draft Plan Consultation
Section 2 -Overview, Vision and Strategic Objectives
Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
Plan?
Paragraph 2.3 identifies the significant overlap of housing areas, business and
employment between Nottingham and South Yorkshire as well as Lincolnshire,
Leicestershire and Derby which is supported. However, recognition should also be
made of the likely pull on mineral resources to meet the anticipated demands from
these growth areas. This could be as an additional feature to Plan 1 - overview of the
Plan area. Without this we consider that the plan is not positively prepared and fails
to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018).
Paragraph 2.27 identifies 'wider issues' which specifically refer to movement of
minerals both in and out the County. Opportunities to work with other Mineral
Planning Authorities to manage these movements is identified. However, these are
issues fundamental to securing steady and adequate supply of mineral from
Nottinghamshire and should be given more prominence throughout the document.
It is considered that the cross boundary relationship with neighbouring authorities,
particularly in regards to mineral supply should be identified taking into account:
1. cross boundary mineral supply from Nottinghamshire - eg to South
Yorkshire, and Leicestershire in light of their identified lack of available sand
and gravel resources and production capacity to meet demand over the Plan
period
2. The lack of available crushed rock/limestone resource within the County and
therefore the heavy reliance on import from adjoining Authority areas
3. The availability of infrastructure links - particularly good road network and
therefore links to market in assisting to secure mineral supply
4. The overlap of housing, business, infrastructure and employment links with
Derbyshire and Leicestershire are identified but there is currently no
reference to an overlap of mineral supply issues
5. The relationship with other mineral authorities and duty to cooperate in Plan
preparation should be referenced
6. The anticipated development needs for housing, employment and
infrastructure provision (including HS2)
Without the above factors being taken into consideration the Plan is not effective
and fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018).
The Vision
In general terms we would support the Vision. However, as well as safeguarding
mineral resource, in accordance with the NPPF the Plan should safeguard mineral
associated infrastructure.
Strategic Objectives
Strategic Objective 1 and a locational strategy to securing mineral supply is
supported. This approach maintains the spread of operations across the County and
maintains a security in supply to the specific markets that these serve. As well as
seeking to 'efficiently deliver resources', the objective should include 'effectively
deliver' resources to ensure that operational capacity in addition to permitted
reserves is available to meet anticipated demand.
The principle of Strategic Objective 2 is supported. However, as referred above, the
Plan should identify the anticipated demand from adjoining Authority areas, failure
to do so will render the plan un-sound as it will not meet the tests of soundness
within paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018) being positively prepared or effective. As well as
ensuring that sufficient resource is allocated to meet anticipated demand, ensuring
that the operational capacity of sites is sufficient to meet anticipated demand.
Strategic Objective 4 should make reference to ancillary infrastructure to take
account of, 'existing, planned and potential sites for the bulk transport, handling and
processing of minerals, the manufacture of concrete and concrete products and the
handling, processing and distribution of substitute, recycled and secondary
aggregate material' as advocated by paragraph 204(e) of the NPPF.
Strategic Policies
Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development
Question 2 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable
development?
No comments
Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
Question 3 - what do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
The general policy on minerals provision should ensure that the Plan maximises its
flexibility to respond to changes in demand. As we have advocated through previous
representations, the 10 years sales average alone does not give an accurate
portrayal of the demand scenario for Nottinghamshire. Closure of long established
sand and gravel quarries, non-replenishment of reserves, continuing impact from the
2008 recession on production capacity and production movements out of the County
have all impacted output from Nottinghamshire. The reduction in sand and gravel
output over the 10 year period should not be translated into a long term reduction in
demand in Nottinghamshire.
Section (a) of Policy SP2 states that the strategy will be to identify 'suitable land for
mineral extraction to maintain a steady and adequate supply of minerals during the
Plan period'. It is suggested that 'suitable' is unnecessary and could be removed.
Extensions to existing sites form a logical progression from an operating perspective
to secure additional mineral supply and are often sustainable and avoid needless
sterilisation. Tarmac encourages 'support' for extensions to ensure maximum
flexibility in securing continued supply from existing operations. All sites have an
operational limit/constraint which means that whilst they will continue to contribute
to demand, there will be a requirement for new greenfield sites to make up any
operational capacity shortfall and to provide an effective continuity when existing
operations become exhausted. The lead in period for development of a greenfield
mineral production site can be at least 5 years, and an overlap between existing
production and replacement production is likely to be required. At some stages of
the Plan Period it is therefore likely that there will be higher production capacity as
the transition between existing and replacement sites takes effect. Further
comments on the site specific approach to this and increasing flexibility in the Plan
are found below under the aggregate provision policies.
Policy SP2, section (c) and (d) allows for other minerals development on non
allocated sites providing that a need can be demonstrated and ensuring the
provision of minerals remains in line with wider economic trends through regular
monitoring. Reliance on the 10 year sales average influenced heavily by a recession
is not likely to reflect demand during a period of economic upturn/growth
particularly given the significant level of new housing and infrastructure planned for
during the Plan period. The strategy for minerals within the Plan needs to ensure
that there is certainty but also some flexibility and opportunity for operators to
invest in the development of mineral production sites throughout the Plan period
where there is a clear need for mineral supply to meet demand which cannot
otherwise be met. The annual LAA documents should be used to assist in that
process.
Policy SP3 - Biodiversity led Restoration
Question 4 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led
restoration?
Whilst Tarmac support paragraph 3.12 and a 'restoration led approach' when
considering mineral operations, it is considered that a biodiversity led
approach/focus taken by Policy SP3 is overly onerous. As opposed to being
categorical about 'significantly enhancing' biodiversity, the policy should be
supportive where it is 'possible' or 'appropriate'. The policy as worded makes no
reference/acknowledgment to the beneficial use of land and the opportunities/
potential aspirations of landowners to have land restored back to
economic/commercial/agricultural after uses. Paragraph 3.14 goes part way to
recognising that there needs to be a balance/weighting of restoration considerations
but it neglects to reference the economic potential only social/recreation and
environmental opportunities. This policy should be reworded to provide emphasis
on a restoration focus to new mineral development without being overly prescriptive
of what restoration must be. In addition, the policy makes no acknowledgement of
the long term financial burden on ecological management post restoration and who
has to fund and manage these areas.
Paras 3.23 to 3.25 should commence with the wording 'If restoration allows, priority
habitats ... justified and effective in delivering the Plan and strategy to reflect the
comments made above.
Paragraph 3.28 discusses 'in some cases' restoration for leisure or agriculture may be
appropriate. Leisure and agricultural restoration are the most common forms of
restoration strategy. We agree with the sentiment that there are opportunities to
incorporate biodiversity/habitat enhancement but there should not be emphasis on
a biodiversity led approach.
Policy SP4 - Climate change
Question 5 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
In accordance with the NPPF, new development should be directed to areas outside
of flood zones. However, the policy as worded does not acknowledge that minerals
can only be worked where they are found. In the case of sand and gravel and river
sand and gravels working will often fall within areas of flood risk. Notwithstanding
this, the policy and sub text should acknowledge that minerals development is
considered an appropriate form of development within a flood zone in accordance
with the planning practice guidance, Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification,
Paragraph: 066 Reference ID: 7-066-20140306.
Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Whilst seeking to support the use of sustainable modes of transport, policy should
be worded to acknowledge/recognise the potential for impact upon the viability of
mineral extraction.
Minerals can only be worked where they are found. The requirement to be located
close to proposed markets is overly onerous. The value of the product and the
availability locally will determine the distance it needs to travel. It is considered that
this policy is overly onerous and discredits the geographical spread/locational
strategy which is being pursued by the Mineral Planning Authority. Such an
approach fails all the tests of soundness within paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018)
Policy SP5 should therefore be amended to read:
1. All mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of
transport, including barge and rail where possible and viable
2. Where it can be demonstrated that there is no viable alternative to road
transport, all new mineral working and mineral related development should
be located as close as possible 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.
The suggested amendments above will therefore negate the requirement for
paragraph 3.42 within the policy justification. Alternative modes of transport will be
supported within the provided that it can be demonstrated that to deliver it would
not affect the viability/deliverability of mineral sites.
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?
Tarmac support the recognition within paragraph 3.46 that detrimental impact on
the natural and built environment as a result of mineral extraction is temporary in
nature and can bring about many environmental benefits. In addition, paragraph
3.51 acknowledges that in regards to heritage and cultural assets, mineral
development provides major opportunities to understand the County's rich
archaeological heritage.
Policy SP6 as worded is overly onerous and does not recognise the weighting of all
facets of sustainable development that should be applied when considering
applications for development. In regard to mineral extraction, whilst there may be
potential for environmental impact, the economic benefit of mineral extraction
should be afforded 'great weight' (paragraph 205 of the NPPF). In addition, 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' in regards to conserving and
enhancing the natural environment. 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.
Paragraph 3.58 refers to Landscape Character Assessment which, 'can be used to
provide special protection to a specific feature'. As we have previously advocated,
whilst Landscape and Biodiversity Mapping is helpful as a baseline for looking at
potential for impact, these documents cannot be viewed or utilised in isolation and
the combined benefits of mineral extraction or opportunities for restoration
enhancement should be afforded weight as opposed to a negative constraint to
development.
Paragraph 3.63 should be deleted. As we have referred to above, mineral
development can only be worked where it is found. It is also a water compatible use
constituting appropriate development within a flood zone as advised within Planning
practice guidance, Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, Paragraph: 066
Reference ID: 7-066-20140306.
Paragraph 3.66 should be deleted as issues associated with infrastructure is handled
under the provisions of the Mining Code.
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 should be amended. Paragraph 3.78
acknowledges that, 'it is likely that suitably designed, landscaped and restored
mineral workings can be accommodated in the green belt'. Whilst it is correct that
minerals development would need to meet the tests within the NPPF on green belt,
a requirement for higher standards of working is unnecessary as is restoration to
enhance the beneficial use of the green belt. This fails to meet the tests of
soundness within paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018) 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 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?
Policy SP8 should refer to 'known' locations of specific mineral resource as opposed
to 'economically important' in accordance with paragraph 204 of the NPPF. Whilst
we agree that known resources should not be sterilised by non mineral
development, the policy should be clearer that all Mineral Safeguarding areas will
become Mineral Consultation Areas.
It is considered that the Minerals Plan would be more effective if it was to define
more specific Mineral Consultation Areas. The proposed approach to define
consultation areas on the same scale as safeguarding areas could mean that large
amounts of development will be caught within an MSA/MCA which would be
onerous on developers having to potentially submit minerals assessments and the
MPA in assessing the potential for impact of development on mineral
resource/mineral associated infrastructure.
As well as safeguarding mineral associated infrastructure, rail heads should be
expanded to include rail heads at coal fired power stations. A wharf facility at
Colwick is specifically referenced for safeguarding. Tarmac has existing river wharf
facilities at Besthorpe Quarry (loading) and Cromwell Quarry (receiving) which
should also be referenced and marked on the Policies Map. The river wharf facility at
Besthorpe Quarry last operated in 2013 but has been retained in a mothballed state.
It is possible that the wharf facility will be put back into use and therefore it should
be identified and safeguarded. Tarmac also has a river wharf facility at Cromwell
Quarry which should be safeguarded within the Plan. Cromwell Quarry has been
promoted at the 'call for sites' exercise for receiving sand and gravel from the
Burridge Farm site near Newark. The Cromwell Quarry river wharf operates
periodically for receiving river dredging, either for processing and sale or disposal
within the quarry site to enhance restoration of the site. The Cromwell Quarry site is
an important facility for the long term dredging operations carried out to maintain
water navigation on the River Trent and the site should therefore be safeguarded for
continued operation throughout the Plan period.
The importance of Local Plan's (District and Borough Council) in understanding and
appreciating the role of safeguarding and defining areas/sites within Local
Development Plan Documents should be explained within the Mineral Plan. The
Planning system is a tiered system with the policies contained within the Mineral
Plan and Local Plan pertinent to the consideration of Planning Applications at County
and District level. The MPA has an important role in ensuring mineral safeguarding is
not perceived as just a County function but guiding and supporting Local Authorities
to appreciate they also have a role to play in accordance with the Planning Practice
Guidance.
In light of the above and the identification of safeguarding areas on the policies
maps Plan 4 is not required.
Paragraph 3.93 is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 204 (e) and should be deleted.
Policies should safeguard all ancillary infrastructure and the NPPF does not
distinguish that only strategic facilities should be safeguarded. Whilst it may be
unnecessary to identify all facilities on policies maps, the policy wording itself should
ensure that these facilities will be safeguarded.
Policies regarding safeguarding should make reference to the 'agent of change'
identified at paragraph 182 of the NPPF. This seeks to ensure that the onus is on
Applicants for new development to put in place adequate mitigation to ensure that
the development would not place unreasonable restrictions on existing
businesses/operations.
Minerals Provision
Policy MP1 - Aggregate Provision
Question 10 - What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate
provision?
The 10 years average sales figures are not the most suitable methodology for
forecasting aggregate demand. National Policy states, forecasts of demand should be
based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data, other relevant information and
through assessment of all other supply options. The 10 years average sales are
heavily influenced by the impact of the recession. In addition, the movement of
production at Finningley outside the County boundary has effectively skewed the
perceived sales/demand. This is particularly apparent given the picture across the
East Midlands which in all other cases have seen increases in sales figures. Whilst,
recycled and secondary aggregate has a role to play in meeting demand in some
circumstances it cannot be relied upon for ensuring continuity in supply. In addition,
given the location of the County it is unlikely that demand can be met from other
sources (for example marine). Considering this, the other relevant local information
is particularly important in forecasting future demand in the County. Considering the
above the Mineral Planning Authority is underproviding sufficient sand and gravel
resource over the Plan period. We support the MPA in their previous approach
which reviewed sales data pre and post-recession to give a greater appreciation of
likely anticipated demand in recession and a period of economic growth.
The operational capacity of permitted operations within the County needs
consideration to ensure that anticipated demand is met. A decline in sales is not
necessarily an indication of a decline in demand. Production moving outside of the
County will impact upon perceived sales figures as well as sites/resource not being
replaced when exhausted.
A Delivery schedule has been prepared as Appendix 2 to the Draft Plan. Tarmac have
enclosed an edited version (Appendix 1a) which shows the available production
capacity from existing sites and proposed allocations as proposed within the Plan
against the identified annual requirement for sand and gravel. The sites proposed for
sand and gravel extraction including allocations are insufficient to even meet that
depressed annual requirement. An edited version is also enclosed at Appendix 1b
which shows how additional allocations could assist in meeting the identified
shortfall.
Although the landbank is sufficient at the start of the Plan period, sites will become
exhausted during the Plan period and provision should be made for replacements.
The Plan should not focus or specify a definitive/maximum amount of mineral
provision. The sales data is an indication of current demand and should not be
perceived as a maximum requirement. The Plan needs to provide flexibility to
support additional sites/resources coming forward during the Plan period to meet
demand/operational requirements to serve existing/future markets. Policy M1
should be updated to provide a more realistic sand and gravel provision figure which
is reflective of economic growth at pre-recession levels. As a minimum the policy
should be clear that the provision of sand and gravel, Sherwood Sandstone and
Crushed Rock are minimum requirements. Section 3 of the policy does not make any
allowance for the benefit of sustainable extensions to existing operations in securing
continued delivery of mineral as advocated by the Strategic Policy SP2.
Policy MP2 - Sand and Gravel Provision
Question 11 - What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel
allocations?
Tarmac are supportive of the approach to work permitted reserves as well as
allocating extensions to existing operations and through the provision of new
greenfield sites. There needs to be allowance in the Plan for both extensions and
new greenfield sites. However, the Plan should provide flexibility and policy should
be supportive in securing extensions to existing operations, this ensures a
continuation in supply without sterilising mineral reserves. Currently the Policy does
not support the strategic policy SP2. This could be achieved through an additional
criterion to Policy MP2 to allow for new mineral sites to come forward to continue to
meet demand subject to environmental considerations. The Plan needs to build in an
element of flexibility to address the issue of long term longevity of mineral
operations in Nottinghamshire - only 4 sand and gravel sites identified in Policy MP2
have long term and significant production capacity.
We support the Council in adopting a locational approach to mineral development
sites to ensure there is a spread in sites to meet anticipated demand. However,
operational capacity constraints still apply (imposed by plant capacity, planning
conditions or HGV routing agreements) which can limit production / distribution to
meet demand in some market areas. These are all important considerations in
locating new sites for mineral development. There should not be a sole reliance on
their physical location in the County. Besthorpe Quarry and Girton Quarry (currently mothballed) for example have vehicle movement restrictions through S106 planning
agreements which forces HGV routing northward. As a result those sites are
generally more aligned to the North Nottinghamshire / Doncaster / Humberside
market areas as opposed to Newark.
Tarmac are very disappointed and surprised that the Besthorpe Quarry East
Extension has not been included as an allocation in the draft plan. The permitted
resource and proposed allocations do not at any time over the Plan period meet the
proposed annual requirement for sand and gravel (1.7mt). The Tarmac revised
Delivery Schedule (appendix 1a and 1b) illustrates this point. The Council is
advocating an approach that gives preference to extensions to existing operations
and on review of the Sustainability Appraisal and Site Assessment supporting paper,
the eastern extension to Besthorpe Quarry is one of the best scoring sites in meeting
the sustainability objectives. There is a very clear and compelling case for the
Besthorpe Quarry East site to be allocated in the Plan.
There is also a clear case for additional allocation of green field sand and gravel sites
to be allocated to come into production during the Plan period. The serious decline
in sand and gravel reserves and projected production capacity in Leicestershire is
clearly evidenced through the Leicestershire Mineral & Waste Local Plan review and
sites have been promoted into the Nottinghamshire Local Mineral Plan review to
meet that identified shortfall and the consequential need for alternative supply from
adjoining authority areas. Tarmac's promoted site 'Great North Road (North)', near
Kelham meets that objective and would deliver a long term sand and gravel
production site with a sustainable output of 250,000 tonnes per annum to serve the
Nottingham and North East Leicestershire market over the plan period to 2036. The
Great North Road (North) site should therefore be allocated in the Plan.
The Great North Road (South) site has a proven significant future sand and gravel
resource which would provide a natural long term extension to the Great North Road
(North) site.
The combined sand and gravel resources at the "North" and "South" sites would
provide a stable long term supply facility to meet the likely strong demand for
construction materials in the Nottingham / NE Leicestershire markets throughout
and beyond the 2036 Plan period.
In addition, Tarmac's proposed new green field extraction site at Burridge Farm,
which is proposed to use river barge transportation to feed sand and gravel to a
proposed new processing plant at the former Cromwell Quarry site previously
operated by Lafarge, would also provide some additional support production
capacity in the second part of the Plan period. The Cromwell plant site is well
situated with good access onto the A1 interchange at Cromwell. The Burridge Farm
site would not have capacity to operate at high output levels due to likely physical
constraints on barge transportation along the River Trent through Cromwell Lock.
Appendix 1 to this letter illustrates the productive capacity of sites within the Plan
area with additional sites included as allocations. Appendix 2 to this letter includes
revised Sustainability Appraisal Matrices supplemented by additional evidence
where appropriate carried out as part of further site investigation work to support
Screening and Scoping submissions and Planning Application documents.
Policy MP3 -Sherwood Sandstone
Question 12 - what do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone
allocations?
The LAA recognises the high level of export to markets outside the County due to
limited resources elsewhere. As per comments on sand and gravel, there is a need
where resource exists to maintain production and operating capacity to meet
demand. The Plan should identify appropriate extensions to existing operations or
new sites to meet demand. Identified demand based on sales is a minimum
requirement of the Plan and there should be flexibility built into the Plan to allow
sites to come forward. The plan should address anticipated demand from outside of
the County. As per comments on Policy MP2 an additional criteria regarding modest
extensions should be included to ensure flexibility in the Plan and to allow the
continued supply of Sherwood Sandstone which is not just important within
Nottinghamshire.
The Plan should recognise the unique properties of the sand as well as markets.
Colour variances as well as properties of the sand are also important factors and
therefore additional reserves (as allocations or new sites) should not solely be based
upon estimated demand based on sales figures.
Policy MP4 - Crushed Rock
Question 13 - what do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock
demand over the Plan period.
It is likely that there is a wider demand for crushed rock within the County than that
met by Nether Langwith. Crushed rock requirements are likely to be met from
imports to meet the demand within the south of the County to minimise the
distance crushed rock will need to travel.
Policy MP5 Secondary and recycled aggregates
Question 14 - what do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled
aggregate?
Support for the MPA in seeking the use of alternative aggregates and the
appreciation that there are limits on how far alternatives can substitute primary
aggregate. Whilst support for alternative aggregate should be encouraged in the
Plan, the contribution should be viewed as a 'bonus' over and above the required
amount of primary aggregate. This is reflective of the NPPF (para 204 (b)) which
states that local Plans should take account of the, 'contribution that substitute or
secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste would make'. The reduction in
ash materials from coal fired power stations is also likely to increase the demand for
primary aggregate over the Plan period to address this specific resource shortfall.
The approach to recycled aggregates reflects the Mineral Products Association Long
Term Aggregates Demand and Supply Scenarios Paper which indicates that the
potential for recycling has reached an optimum level (approximately 28-30%
volume).
Policy MP9 Industrial Dolomite Provision
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over
the plan period?
Reserves of industrial dolomite are of international importance and the resource
itself is scarce with only a small number of sites within the UK. As such there will
always be a need for the resource, therefore the policy should be reworded to state
that:
'Proposals for industrial dolomite extraction will be supported providing that
development does not give rise to any unacceptable levels of environmental impact'.
Whilst additional resource areas do not need to be identified as an allocation, the
resource within Nottinghamshire should be identified within the Plan and recognised
as a proven resource to be safeguarded.
Development Management Policies
Policy DM1 - Protecting Local Amenity
Question 22 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local
amenity?
No comments
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?
It is considered that the use of 'detrimentally altered' is not an effective strategy as
there is no quantifiable method by which it can be monitored, nor severity of impact
measured. It is suggested that giving rise to 'unacceptable impacts' would be more
appropriate.
In regard to flooding, criterion 3. states that 'proposals for mineral extraction that
increase flood risk to local communities will not be supported unless the risks can be
fully mitigated'. This statement appears contradictory as in cases where 'risks can be
fully mitigated' the proposal would not 'increase flood risk to local communities'. As
such, the purpose/ intent of this statement is unclear, and it is recommended that
the policy is re-worded.
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
Whilst it is correct to protect and enhance soils (NPPF paragraph 170) and therefore
the best and most versatile agricultural land, the policy is not positively prepared nor
an effective strategy. Minerals can only be worked where they are located and in the
majority of circumstances this is in areas of countryside and often on agricultural
land. Notwithstanding this, with appropriate soil handling strategies the value of soil
resource can be retained, and the land restored for agricultural purposes.
The policy should be reworded as follows:
Policy DM3: Agricultural Land and Soil Quality
Agricultural land
Proposals for minerals development located on the best and most versatile
agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will be supported where it can be demonstrated
that where alternative options are limited to varying grades of best and most
versatile land, the development should be located within the lowest grade where
possible.
Soil quality
Measures will be taken to ensure that soil quality will be adequately protected and
maintained throughout the life of the development and, in particular, during
stripping, storage, management and final placement of soils, subsoils and
overburden arising's as a result of site operations.
Policy DM4: Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Question 25 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for policy DM4:
protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
Policy DM4 is onerous and not in compliance with the NPPF, particularly in regard to
the approach on local sites. Paragraph 175 of the NPPF advises that 'if significant
harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided...' Paragraph 2 of Policy DM4 should be
amended to reflect the significance of harm to allow a judgement to be made as
opposed to a blanket approach to all impacts. Placing populations of priority species
or areas of priority habitat alongside irreplaceable habitats (criteria d) also does not
distinguish between the value/significance of assets - irreplaceable habitats should
be given greater weight than areas of priority habitat. The distinction needs to be
made to ensure that development has the opportunity to present potential
mitigation or compensation strategies as required by part 2 of the policy.
Policy DM5: Landscape Character
Question 26 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: landscape
character?
Policy DM5 should reflect the guidance within the NPPF at paragraph 170 to 'protect
and enhance valued landscapes ... (in a manner commensurate with their statutory
status or identified quality in the development plan)'. Paragraph 171 goes further to
state that plans should, 'distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national
and locally designated sites' It appears that the policy 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 wording of Policy DM5 appears confused. The policy, as worded, implies that
minerals developments will only be supported if they do not result in an adverse
impact on the landscape and that harmful impacts can be adequately mitigated. In
situations where there is no available alternative to the development and the
development outweighs the landscape interest, the policy still requires that harmful
impacts are adequately mitigated.
Policy DM6: Historic Environment
Question 27 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: historic
environment?
Paragraph 184 of the NPPF recognises that assets should be conserved in a manner
appropriate to their significance. In regard to non-designated assets (part c of policy
DM6), the Policy is not consistent with paragraph 197 of the NPPF. In the event of
applications that directly or directly affect non designated assets, a balanced
judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the
significance of the asset. Paragraph 197 does not require there to be public benefit.
Paragraph 3.51 acknowledges that in regard to heritage and cultural assets, mineral
development provides major opportunities to understand the County's rich
archaeological heritage. Policy DM6 does not currently recognise this and should
refer to the NPPF requirement of assessment proportionate to the assets
importance (paragraph 189).
Policy DM7: Public Access
Question 28 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: public access
As worded policy DM7 part 1 and 2 are contradictory. It is considered that the policy
should be reworded as follows:
Policy DM7: Public Access
Proposal for mineral development will be supported where it is demonstrated that
development does not give rise to unacceptable impact on existing rights of way and
its users. Where proposals for temporary or permanent diversions are required they
should be of equivalent interest and quality.
Improvements and enhancements to rights of way networks will be supported and
where practicable enhanced public access to restored mineral workings will be
encouraged.
Policy DM12: Restoration, After use and Aftercare
Question 33 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: restoration,
after use and aftercare
Section 2 should refer to agricultural restoration. The economic long term use of
land should be recognised as should the long term aspirations of landowners.
Section 4 refers to 'satisfactory evidence' which is difficult to quantify. It is suggested
that just evidence regarding to sources of waste being available over an appropriate
timescale would be sufficient.
Policy DM14: irrigation lagoons
Question 35 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM14: irrigation
lagoons
The sub text refers to mineral 'usually being taken offsite for processing'. This should
be essential criteria as part of the policy to ensure that mineral extracted cannot
substitute/replace/prejudice extraction of resource permitted or allocated as a
mineral extraction site (as per part d of the policy)
Other Considerations
Monitoring
Given the concern regarding the anticipated demand for sand and gravel over the
Plan period, the Plan needs to set out a very clear strategy on monitoring and review
to ensure that it can respond quickly enough to changes in economic circumstances.
Sustainability Appraisal
General Comments
As we have stated as part of previous consultation responses on other MLP Drafts,
the weighting of each of the Sustainability Appraisal objectives should be explained
and how these will be used to assess the Plan policies and any sites promoted for
allocation. Currently the SA Objectives are heavily weighted to potential
environmental effect. However, economic and social facets of sustainability are
critical elements relating to minerals development - i.e maintaining supply, access
and proximity to market, beneficial restoration objectives, non-sterilisation of known
resource by promoting extensions to existing operations etc. Attention is drawn to
the NPPF and that 'minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth'.
As well as providing an 'adequate' amount, the SA has failed to take account of the
need to plan for a 'steady and adequate' supply of aggregate (paragraph 207). There
is a requirement for the MPA to recognise that as well as ensuring they have a
sufficient land bank of resource that the Plan maintains aggregate provision across
the whole Plan period - comments above on operational capacity are particularly
pertinent to this.
Site Specifics
As referred to above under the site specific Policy DM2, Tarmac have reviewed the
Sustainability Appraisal for their sites and provided additional evidence where
necessary to support proposed allocations (see appendix 2).
I trust that the above comments are helpful. Should you have any queries or wish to
discuss any of the points raised in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.