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

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30726

Received: 28/08/2018

Respondent: Teri Browett

Representation:

This policy does not meet any of the objectives.
Nothing to do with shale extraction can possibly do so.

Full text:

This policy does not meet any of the objectives.
Nothing to do with shale extraction can possibly do so.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30774

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: 30815

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: 30845

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

Representation:

We welcome this policy but suggest there is a need to also require alternative sites with shorter or more environmentally acceptable routes to market to be preferred.

Full text:

We welcome this policy but suggest there is a need to also require alternative sites with shorter or more environmentally acceptable routes to market to be preferred.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30916

Received: 20/09/2018

Respondent: Cemex UK operations

Representation:

No comment

Full text:

No comment

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31188

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

Noise, damage to roads and soft verges, mud and dust are not the only contaminants of public highways. The impact of vehicle emissions on air quality is worrying, particularly on roads like the A17 which carries a high percentage of HGV traffic, and the A1 where housing developments of the last 15 years have brought many Coddington and Newark residents within its influence. The severe impacts of poor air quality on human health are increasingly understood and publicised. The revised spatial distribution of sites closer to their markets will help reduce mineral miles, associated air pollution and climate change impacts.

Full text:

Noise, damage to roads and soft verges, mud and dust are not the only contaminants of public highways. The impact of vehicle emissions on air quality is worrying, particularly on roads like the A17 which carries a high percentage of HGV traffic, and the A1 where housing developments of the last 15 years have brought many Coddington and Newark residents within its influence. The severe impacts of poor air quality on human health are increasingly understood and publicised. The revised spatial distribution of sites closer to their markets will help reduce mineral miles, associated air pollution and climate change impacts.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31189

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

5.99 Whilst Highways England is responsible for the trunk network, many of the roads carrying minerals (often for high proportion of their journeys) are de-trunked single-carriage cross-country freight routes in the care of Nottinghamshire County Council (and adjacent authorities). The limited number of river crossings, the size and strength of bridges and the geometry of villages through which these routes still pass mean that HGVs physical size and haulage capacity should not be allowed to increase.

Full text:

5.99 Whilst Highways England is responsible for the trunk network, many of the roads carrying minerals (often for high proportion of their journeys) are de-trunked single-carriage cross-country freight routes in the care of Nottinghamshire County Council (and adjacent authorities). The limited number of river crossings, the size and strength of bridges and the geometry of villages through which these routes still pass mean that HGVs physical size and haulage capacity should not be allowed to increase.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31190

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

2.3.1 CAGE believes that planning applications for all mineral sites require a Transport Assessment - if not CAGE wishes to know under what circumstances a TA would be considered unnecessary.

2.3.3 CAGE disagrees with the statement that quarries are normally located well outside urban centres and the assertion that operational life can be relatively short and total HGV numbers small. The proposed (but not allocated) site at Coddington was only 3miles from Newark, 350m from Coddington, scheduled to last for at least 20 years and discharged 200 HGV journeys/day onto the road network.

Full text:

2.3.1 CAGE believes that planning applications for all mineral sites require a Transport Assessment - if not CAGE wishes to know under what circumstances a TA would be considered unnecessary.

2.3.3 CAGE disagrees with the statement that quarries are normally located well outside urban centres and the assertion that operational life can be relatively short and total HGV numbers small. The proposed (but not allocated) site at Coddington was only 3miles from Newark, 350m from Coddington, scheduled to last for at least 20 years and discharged 200 HGV journeys/day onto the road network.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31191

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

2.3.8 Pedestrian and cyclist intimidation has increased massively since 1993 when GEART was drafted and severance for these road users is much more widespread, surely contributing to decreased physical activity, obesity and health issues. Several of Coddington's footpaths to adjacent villages and leisure facilities have been severed by dangerous high-volume roads A46, A1 and A17/Newark Bypass.

Full text:

2.3.8 Pedestrian and cyclist intimidation has increased massively since 1993 when GEART was drafted and severance for these road users is much more widespread, surely contributing to decreased physical activity, obesity and health issues. Several of Coddington's footpaths to adjacent villages and leisure facilities have been severed by dangerous high-volume roads A46, A1 and A17/Newark Bypass.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 31192

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation:

Pg 7 The map should be titled Fig 3.1 'Minerals Sites within and Surrounding Nottinghamshire', and include minerals sites in adjacent counties within 20 miles of the county border.

Pg 9 The Newark overview map Fig 3.3 should be centred further to the east,and should include quarry sites both existing and allocated by the Lincs MLP just over the county border at in order to correctly represent the situation. Similar comments apply to Fig 3.2 Nottingham Overview and Fig 3.4 Idle Valley Overview.

Full text:

Pg 7 The map should be titled Fig 3.1 'Minerals Sites within and Surrounding Nottinghamshire', and include minerals sites in adjacent counties within 20 miles of the county border.

Pg 9 The Newark overview map Fig 3.3 should be centred further to the east,and should include quarry sites both existing and allocated by the Lincs MLP just over the county border at in order to correctly represent the situation. Similar comments apply to Fig 3.2 Nottingham Overview and Fig 3.4 Idle Valley Overview.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32215

Received: 29/08/2018

Respondent: Shelford Against Gravel Extraction (SAGE)

Representation:

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.

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: 32256

Received: 28/08/2018

Respondent: Shelford Parish Council

Representation:

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.

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.