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

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30725

Received: 28/08/2018

Respondent: Teri Browett

Representation:

I think that it sounds very good but I also think that it will not happen. Once shale extraction starts all of the things you purport to protect will be destroyed. Once destroyed they cannot be restored.

Full text:

I think that it sounds very good but I also think that it will not happen. Once shale extraction starts all of the things you purport to protect will be destroyed. Once destroyed they cannot be restored.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30773

Received: 13/09/2018

Respondent: Newark & Sherwood District Council

Representation:

NSDC is supportive.

Full text:

NSDC is supportive.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30814

Received: 17/09/2018

Respondent: Coddington Parish Council

Representation:

Coddington Parish Council supports the draft policy.

Full text:

Coddington Parish Council supports the draft policy.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30844

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

Representation:

Agree wording but it should be emphasised that cumulative impacts of road transport from different sites should be legitimate concerns.

Full text:

Agree wording but it should be emphasised that cumulative impacts of road transport from different sites should be legitimate concerns.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30863

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: Misson Parish Council

Representation:

This policy needs to take account of what could happen should shale gas extraction be designated a NSIP.

Full text:

This policy needs to take account of what could happen should shale gas extraction be designated a NSIP.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30914

Received: 20/09/2018

Respondent: Cemex UK operations

Representation:

No comment

Full text:

No comment

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30915

Received: 20/09/2018

Respondent: Cemex UK operations

Representation:

No comment

Full text:

No comment

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31177

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

CAGE strongly supports DM8 on cumulative impact. 5.95 recognises that cumulative impact can also operate through the inability of regional infrastructure to accommodate one or several minerals sites when combined with existing, proposed and reasonably foreseeable non-mineral development. CAGE is glad that sense prevailed and that the previous proposal to concentrate 70% of gravel extraction close to Newark has been abandoned for a more sustainable geographic spread of sites close to their markets.

Full text:

CAGE strongly supports DM8 on cumulative impact. 5.95 recognises that cumulative impact can also operate through the inability of regional infrastructure to accommodate one or several minerals sites when combined with existing, proposed and reasonably foreseeable non-mineral development. CAGE is glad that sense prevailed and that the previous proposal to concentrate 70% of gravel extraction close to Newark has been abandoned for a more sustainable geographic spread of sites close to their markets.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31178

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

Cumulative impacts are not confined to the area within Nottinghamshire but need to consider factors up to 20 miles outside county borders including mineral safeguarded areas, existing and allocated mineral sites and their export routes, landscapes, local roads and regional freight routes, river and river crossings etc. Too often in the supplementary reports it states that cumulative effects have not yet been examined. Cooperation between neighbouring authorities on Minerals Plans needs to be made transparent to show a proper concern for those living on the county borders.

Full text:

Cumulative impacts are not confined to the area within Nottinghamshire but need to consider factors up to 20 miles outside county borders including mineral safeguarded areas, existing and allocated mineral sites and their export routes, landscapes, local roads and regional freight routes, river and river crossings etc. Too often in the supplementary reports it states that cumulative effects have not yet been examined. Cooperation between neighbouring authorities on Minerals Plans needs to be made transparent to show a proper concern for those living on the county borders.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31180

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

Authority definition of unacceptable cumulative impact may NOT be shared by the public.

CAGE was dismayed to learn of West Deeping (a historic parish with Conservation area in mid Lincolnshire in an area of ancient settlement) which had lost 50% of its land surface to gravel extraction, with a further 15% now allocated and under threat. How this has escaped the definition of unacceptable cumulative impact is impossible to understand, nor how an adequate monetary value or compensation in kind could ever be made for this depredation.

Full text:

Authority definition of unacceptable cumulative impact may NOT be shared by the public.

CAGE was dismayed to learn of West Deeping (a historic parish with Conservation area in mid Lincolnshire in an area of ancient settlement) which had lost 50% of its land surface to gravel extraction, with a further 15% now allocated and under threat. How this has escaped the definition of unacceptable cumulative impact is impossible to understand, nor how an adequate monetary value or compensation in kind could ever be made for this depredation.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31181

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

The Trent Washlands are not the only landscape particularly under pressure from minerals development - the Village Farmlands, East Nottinghamshire Sandlands are equally under threat, from both Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire Local Minerals Plans.

NCC should publish figures (by Parish) on land surface in the county already lost to water. Developers must state what percentage area is likely to be recovered as land surface and non-water habitat.

Full text:

The Trent Washlands are not the only landscape particularly under pressure from minerals development - the Village Farmlands, East Nottinghamshire Sandlands are equally under threat, from both Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire Local Minerals Plans.

NCC should publish figures (by Parish) on land surface in the county already lost to water. Developers must state what percentage area is likely to be recovered as land surface and non-water habitat.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32176

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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,

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32214

Received: 29/08/2018

Respondent: Shelford Against Gravel Extraction (SAGE)

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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".

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32255

Received: 28/08/2018

Respondent: Shelford Parish Council

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32310

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Peter Doyle

Representation:

Five site allocations are in the Idle Valley. Along the A638 within 4 miles. Also a planning application for a further site.
The cumulative impact should have been taken into account when further sites were submitted.

Also in a 2 mile radius off the A638, a permitted development of shale gas extraction at Tinker lane, Torworth.

Cumulative Policy

Para 5.95 commented on. The cumulative Impact occurs when over development is allowed to intrude, into the local amenity of those who live and work in those communities.

Full text:

Mineral Local Plan Draft Consultation.

INTRODUCTION

In regard to the Issues and Options Consultation, we submitted our views into how sites are chosen due to the unfavourable site choices that had been submitted in the previous MLP.

However, the same sites choices which were in the previous MLP have been re-submitted again in the new MLP Draft Consultation,with the exception of Barnby Moor.

Although Barnby Moor has now been removed from the MLP Draft Consultation, a planning application regarding this site was submitted to the planning department and is still pending, to allow the mineral operators time to come to an agreement on how to work this site.

As Botany Bay and Barnby Moor are under consideration by different departments, if approved, this will result in having two new greenfield sites in the same village, contrary to the preference shown in the Issues and Options Consultation, of choosing extensions to permitted quarries rather than creating new greenfield sites.


In regard to the previous MLP Consultation, a stipulation was made by the Independent Inspector stating no more sites should be chosen from the idle valley.

This stipulation occurred when the Independent Inspector in the 2005 Mineral Local Plan gave approval to permit a quarry to be allocated at Sturton Le Steeple. The decision made by the Independent Inspector stipulated however, that no further sites would be required in the idle valley until the reserves in this site was worked out.

When the site at Sturton Le Steeple was allocated into the MLP, however an objection was made to why Botany Bay had not been allocated, however the inspector reply was, as there were sufficient reserves in the Sturton Le Steeple quarry that no further sites from the idle valley were needed until this quarry had been worked out to prevent an over provision from the area.

The Sturton Le Steeple quarry obtained planning approval in 2008, however in 2011 the mineral operator made a request to the NCC to shelve this quarry stating that the lack of demand for sand and gravel was the reason for their decision and that commercially they would proceed with the application in its entirety when the situation changed.

However, this was contrary to the findings in the LAA report which stated at the time of this request, that sand and gravel was showing an increase in demand, not a decrease, however the request was still approved by the NCC to delay working this quarry.

This was also duplicity on the part of the mineral operator, as at the call for site stage, the mineral operator, submitted the largest number of sites throughout the County into the MLP, including the idle valley, which went against the stipulation that no further sites should be submitted.


This mineral operator has now decided to mothball the Sturton Le Steeple quarry, however he also owns the mineral rights of Girton quarry and has also mothballed this quarry. This quarry's planning permission is up to 2036.


In mothballing sites, it allows the operators to submit more sites into the MLP, however in the previous Mineral Local Plan, it was not considered sound, as it exceeded the permitted reserves, as too many sites were being submitted by the mineral industry without sufficient justification, as there was not a need. However the more sites the mineral operator acquires, the more assets they have.


When mineral operators are allowed to stockpile quarries by mothballing or restricting output, the owness is then put on the less favourable sites, which are then chosen to make up the shortfall. This was cited in the LAA which states the decision to delay working the Sturton Le Steeple quarry was the reason for the shortfall.

In the Consultation Process, the rules are that all parties should accept without objection, the final decision of the Independent Inspector. However that did not happen, due to the mineral operator mothballing the Sturton Le Steeple quarry, he has now submitted his preferred choice of Botany Bay into the Mineral Local Plan Draft Consultation, against the Inspector's stipulation, so in essence it is the mineral operator who has made the final decision.

As the NCC ignored this stipulation, by allowing further sites from the idle valley into the MLP, then we believe justification needs to be demonstrated to why this was allowed.

However this request for information was declined, requesting us to submit our comments into the MLP Draft Consultation.

On these grounds we would like to challenge the decision in allocating further sites into the idle valley for the reasons we have stated. I believe we will be given the opportunity to address this matter to the Secretary of State in the next Consultation Process.

Have Your Say

The MLP Draft Consultation is a complex document which has taken 7 months to complete, and was submitted for us to view on 26th June 2018. However, I do not find this document user friendly, as the individual questions posed, covered policies too diverse to be able to respond with a single reply.

In Question 1, our comments was invited on the strategic objectives and the draft vision, as these objectives covered a range of issues in total, there were nine objectives, then equally it would require 9 responses, and this was just in Question 1.

This approach was applied to every question in the MLP, the reading matter also prior to the question was far too extensive, which added more information and different approaches and elements to the policy, that when you reached the question, it required reading the information again as there were too many issues to respond to.

Due to the reasons above, I believe the presentation of the MLP Draft Consultation does not lend itself in encouraging participation into the consultation process, it actually discourages it.

As these policies are very important, I would prefer to address them in context to the site allocations and to whether they are being applied, to safeguard our communities from adverse effects.

DM8 Cumulative Impact

In regard to the new site allocations selected in the MLP Draft Consultation, there are eight new sand and gravel allocations submitted, and five of those have been chosen from the idle valley. (This includes the sherwood sandstone allocation into the MLP)

However, as the mineral operator has also submitted to the Planning Department a proposal to quarry at Barnby moor, then as this is a foreseeable development and will add to the cumulative impact, then this should have been taken into account when further sites were submitted.

The number of sites under consideration in the idle valley, are six in total, and to which five of these sites, are located on the A638 within a 4mile radius.

As Barnby Moor is under consideration, I have included it in the calculations.

These relate to 2 new greenfield sites, PA01/MP2r one submitted into the MLP Draft Consultation and one submitted into the Planning Department and 4 extensions MP21/ MP2n/ MP2m/ MP3g/

Also in a 2 mile radius off the A638, a permitted development of shale gas extraction at Tinker lane, Torworth where drilling is expected to start October 2018. The proposed quarry at Barnby Moor and nearby residents are in the air quality sensitive receptor zone.

The situation in the idle valley is that we have been given unjustly the lions share of the sites allocations submitted into the Mineral Draft Consultation.

Cumulative Policy

5.95 'as the plan is to ensure that impacts of a mineral proposal are considered in conjunction with the impacts of other past, present or foreseeable developments, in that the cumulative impact on the environment of an area, or on the amenity of a local community are fully addressed'.

The cumulative Impact occurs when over development is allowed to intrude, into the local amenity of those who live and work in those communities.

DM1 Protecting Local Amenity

The actions of protecting local amenity, is not by designating multiple quarries and shale extraction in one location. I would not consider that to be line with the preferred option, of geographical spreading the sites throughout the County, not compacting them all in a four mile radius.

This decision of choosing them all in one location, will have a negative impact on our health and wellbeing and also is contrary to the climate change policy by increasing emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrate oxide into communities where people are living and bringing up their families.

This disregard for human health by allowing mineral operators to site their quarries so close to the community, as created a situation where residents who have previously been happy to live in the area have decided that it is not fair or healthy for their children to be living so close to a site that will omit on a daily basis, dust, noise, fumes from the plant machinery, dangerous gases from the heavy goods vehicles in and out all day.

I believe those that are affected think enough is enough, and If the County Council is failing us, then the decision falls onto to those living in the community to take the decision to leave, and unfortunately that is what is happening.

DM6 Historic Environment
Scrooby MP3g

5.70. National Policy states the most important heritage assets should be conserved and that balancing the need for development against potential harm to heritage assets needs to be fully justified. The Council has a duty to protect, conserve and enhance the significance and appearance of the area's historic environment when carrying out its statutory functions and through the planning system.

As the majority of these sites are located in Scrooby, I was surprised that another extension for Scrooby is to be allocated in 2023.

This site MP3g which is only 1.3km from Scrooby village has 4,831,000m/t of sherwood sandstone, which will be worked over a period of 40 years. This just adds to the burden of increasing pollution into the area, defacing its landscape and affecting biodiversity.

In the assessment of this site, it would have a negative impact on the historic assets as the quarrying operation is 1.3km from Scrooby village and its setting. it also stated that during the operational period there could be a negative effect on the quality of life,

As the National Policy states that the most important assets will be conserved, and the Council states it has a duty to protect, conserve and enhance the appearance of the area's historic environment. As Scrooby is the birth place of William Brewster, one of founders of the Pilgrim Fathers then why is it not being protected.

Sustainable Development
SP1 (NPPF) 'presumption of favour '

This is a policy that is put in place that allows a decision not to be made on evidence or justification, it can be made on presumption of favour, which basically stating it is predetermined in its favour. The meaning of presumption in the dictionary is, a behaviour perceived as arrogant, disrespectful, and transgressing the limits of what is permitted appropriate.

This policy is not appropriate, especially in public office, where you have to show transparency. The mineral industry is a lucrative business, so making decisions in presumption of favour is not appropriate.

If this policy was applied in a Court room and you was told that the judgment was to presume in favour of the Court, you would know instantly that would be an unjust decision, and equally it still applicable in the Consultation Process, when life changing decisions are being made, to adversely change the tranquility of where you live, the air that you breath, your outlook on the landscape and the peacefulness of the countryside. If the policy is presuming in its own favour, then it is predetermining the decision.

This policy uses the term, golden thread in the presumption of favour, however I would say its the golden egg, which benefits the County Council and the mineral industry.

Site Allocations

In the idle valley, we have been subjected to major quarry developments in close proximity of each other, 5 quarries, and a shale gas extraction site, all in a four mile radius.

In view that Barnby Moor is a foreseeable development, then there are six quarries.

This development will change our rural communities from fields of wheat and corn, to noisy dusty sites with increased transport, poor air quality, with an increase in fumes, loss of landscape and character, and will change these pretty hamlets with open fields to become large dust bowls.

This area was rightly assessed as being the worse sites submitted in the County because of the detrimental impact these developments will have on the area if these are approved.

Conclusion

In view that an Independent Inspector had chosen the appropriate site from the idle valley, but his decision was not executed, then we would like to challenge the allocations from the idle valley which have been substituted for this site not being implemented.