Question 37: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial development?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30781

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: 30822

Received: 17/09/2018

Respondent: Coddington Parish Council

Representation:

Applications for associated developments will need to comply with the same policies and conditions as for mineral extraction sites.

Full text:

Applications for associated developments will need to comply with the same policies and conditions as for mineral extraction sites.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30848

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

Representation:

Associated industrial developments should not be permitted in a green belt area. This would undermine the whole concept of "greenbelt". It would be progressively and speedily eroded.

Full text:

Associated industrial developments should not be permitted in a green belt area. This would undermine the whole concept of "greenbelt". It would be progressively and speedily eroded.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30923

Received: 20/09/2018

Respondent: Cemex UK operations

Representation:

No comment

Full text:

No comment

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 30963

Received: 22/09/2018

Respondent: Greenfield Associates

Agent: Greenfield Associates

Representation:

Policy DM16 is supported, but there is no reference to Green Belt. If there is a clear direct link between a minerals operation and an associated industrial development eg bagging operation or concrete plant etc, can this type of associated development be permissible within the Green Belt, provided the associated development is removed as the quarry is restored? Associated development may have a temporary impact on openness, but may have significant sustainability benefits, such as reduced HGV movements/transport impacts and reduced energy usage.

Full text:

Policy DM16 is supported, but there is no reference to Green Belt. If there is a clear direct link between a minerals operation and an associated industrial development eg bagging operation or concrete plant etc, can this type of associated development be permissible within the Green Belt, provided the associated development is removed as the quarry is restored? Associated development may have a temporary impact on openness, but may have significant sustainability benefits, such as reduced HGV movements/transport impacts and reduced energy usage.

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32221

Received: 29/08/2018

Respondent: Shelford Against Gravel Extraction (SAGE)

Representation:

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"

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: 32262

Received: 28/08/2018

Respondent: Shelford Parish Council

Representation:

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".

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: 32306

Received: 27/09/2018

Respondent: Rushcliffe Borough Council

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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,