SP2: Biodiversity- Led Restoration
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 14
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Natural England
Support policy but suggest update regarding likelihood that biodiversity net gain will become mandatory.
Policy SP2 – Biodiversity-Led Restoration – support
Natural England supports the approach that this policy and the accompanying text sets out with regard to the restoration of mineral sites to maximise opportunities for the establishment or re-establishment of priority habitats at a landscape scale and for providing re-created linkages to strengthen and enhance ecological networks.
We welcome the inclusion at paragraph 2.12 of the requirement of the 25 year Environment Plan to embed environmental Net Gain into all developments. We suggest that this could now be updated to better reflect the recent government advise on this topic and the likelihood that biodiversity net gain will become mandatory in the proposed Environment Bill.
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 41
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: UK Onshore Oil and Gas
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
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’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is 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, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 109
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
NWT strongly support the biodiversity-led approach and we have worked closely with NCC to develop the principles, concepts and policy over several years, and have contributed substantively to the wording in the text and the site allocation briefs. We therefore support the inclusion of this policy in principle. Our concern, however, is that extra clarity is required that even excellent new habitat creation cannot replace existing high quality habitats, and would not reach a comparable quality even over several generations, and in some cases never. This is because the sources of propagules and colonising fauna for a new habitat are no longer available in many environments, so even the best new habitat creation cannot attract the diversity of fauna and flora that is present in a high value older habitat, and so this should not be used as a means to replace those existing habitats (and their associated species). In addition, it is extremely difficult to replicate the same edaphic conditions on which to establish the habitat, particularly using stored soils that have lost much of their microfauna. Without a specific statement to this effect, the policy is open to misinterpretation and therefore may not be sound. There is also a risk that by inadvertently appearing to support habitat creation over protection of existing BAP/Sn 41 habitats , this policy may be in breach of the NERC Biodiversity Duty .
In Nottinghamshire we have seen an example of exactly this, where an application has sought to claim that new habitats will replace existing high value designated habitats, so this is a real demonstrable risk, rather than a theoretical one.
Directly relevant is that para 3.49 describes the importance of the protection of habitats but then undermines this by the use of “as far as possible” , which we do not consider to be a robust approach and can be used as a loophole for allowing unsustainable development and a further means to inadvertently undermine the excellent intent of the Policy. This is covered under a separate NWT representation form.
See attachments
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 154
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Newark & Sherwood District Council
The Council is also supportive of the Biodiversity – Led approach to restoration of minerals workings and the policies ensuring that minerals extraction addresses the impact of climate change and protects residents from unnecessary traffic movements.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan – Publication Version
The District Council considered the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan at the Economic Development Committee on the 11th October 2019 and agreed the response contained within this letter.
The District Council welcomes the publication of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan which provides a long term sustainable plan to deliver the necessary minerals to support new development in the County.
The Council is supportive of the strategic approach that the County Council has set out in the Plan in particular the approach to calculating minerals provision. The Council is also supportive of the Biodiversity – Led approach to restoration of minerals workings and the policies ensuring that minerals extraction addresses the impact of climate change and protects residents from unnecessary traffic movements.
The Council is supportive of the approach which allows for the expansion of existing sand and gravel quarries in the District rather than the development of new ones, this is a more sustainable approach and means that existing strategies for mitigating the impact of the minerals workings can be maintained. The Council is also supportive of this approach in relation to the expansion of gypsum workings to the south of Newark.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 174
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Mick George
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
MGL objects to Policy SP2 – Biodiversity-Led Restoration and in particular part 1 of the policy which does not clarify sufficiently the potential conflict with the type of restoration sought and the need to preserve the long term potential of best and most versatile soils. Although there is a useful and welcome mention in paragraph 3.14 of the recognition that agricultural afteruses might be compatible with biodiversity objectives, there is no discussion of the potential conflicts that occur with other environmental objectives or of the realities of mineral working in the justification text. For example, in paragraphs 3.23-3.25 there is a list of priority habitats but no recognition of how this might fit in with safeguarding BMV soils. Moreover, it is expected in the creation of open water areas will be minimised (paragraph 3.26) although in the absence of fill material with which to create land areas this will not be possible to achieve.
2. The confusion over policy objectives is also apparent in paragraph 5.130 of the Plan where it is said, “Where the proposed after use is to be one which requires little or no soil, e.g. a lake or a nature reserve requiring impoverished soil resources, it would be better for soils to be removed from site and used beneficially elsewhere.” This requirement may not be a wise choice since surplus soils are often needed as fill for marginal lake habitats in order to create the biodiversity sought by national and local policy and to reduce areas of open water.
3. Furthermore, any reference to “soils” should make clear this relates to “topsoil”. It would appear irrational to export subsoil materials offsite.
4. MGL is seeking the acknowledgement that agricultural afteruses are still important for the best soils for inclusion in the policy to aid clarification of potentially conflicting objectives.
5. The reason for the proposed changes is that the policy is not justified or effective.
See attached
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 254
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Tarmac
Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Whilst Tarmac support paragraph 3.11 and a ‘restoration led approach’ when considering
mineral operations, it is considered that a biodiversity led approach/focus taken by Policy
SP2 is overly onerous, not an effective strategy and is therefore unsound. As opposed to
being categorical about ‘significantly enhancing’ biodiversity (paragraph 3.12), the policy
should be supportive where it is ‘possible’ or ‘appropriate’. The policy as worded makes no
reference/acknowledgment to the beneficial use of land and the opportunities/potential
aspirations of landowners to have land restored back to economic/commercial/agricultural
after uses. Paragraph 3.14 goes part way to recognising that there needs to be a
balance/weighting of restoration considerations but it neglects to reference the economic
potential, instead referring only to social/recreation and environmental opportunities.
Paragraph 3.14 discusses restoration for leisure or agriculture. Leisure and agricultural
9
restoration are the most common forms of restoration strategy. We agree with the
sentiment that there are opportunities to incorporate biodiversity/habitat enhancement but
there should not be emphasis on a biodiversity led approach.
This policy should be retitled to ‘restoration led approach to minerals development’ to
provide emphasis on a restoration focus without being overly prescriptive of restoration
type. In addition, the policy makes no acknowledgement of the long term financial burden
on ecological management post restoration and who has to fund and manage these areas.
Paras 3.23 to 3.25 should commence with the wording ‘If restoration allows, priority habitats
… . This would be more effective in delivering the Plan and strategy to reflect the comments
made above.
See attached
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 302
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE
Number of people: 5
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Summary
The policy is unsound because it is not ‘effective’ or consistent with national policy in delivering sustainable development through appropriate biodiversity led restoration and therefore fails the tests of Paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Specifically:
a) it fails to set out what happens where biodiversity gains are not maximised;
b) it does not reference restoration measures to any mitigation hierarchy; and,
c) it fails to specify requirements for sustainable long-term aftercare where restoration takes place.
Supporting information is included in the full representation
See attached