SP4: Sustainable Transport
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 19
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong
Justified: We strongly support the need for sustainable methods of transport to be used where possible, with the location of aggregate sources of supply close to existing markets to minimise the impact on the environment and communities of road transport.
Justified: We strongly support the need for sustainable methods of transport to be used where possible, with the location of aggregate sources of supply close to existing markets to minimise the impact on the environment and communities of road transport.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 43
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: UK Onshore Oil and Gas
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
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.
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: 143
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Broxtowe Green Party
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
1. The existing plan is inadequate in relation to recent developments in science and policy that now recognise our climate emergency. It is no longer adequate to ‘reduce impact’ of greenhouse gases and global warming.
2. There needs to be fresh approaches so that we change direction away from fossil fuels altogether. Only then will national targets be reached. The Minerals Policy is a good place to start.
3. Government has now committed to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 – this is a start and NCC need to address this. To ignore this policy is dangerous.
4. We know that 2050 is not soon enough to address the emergency...but to do nothing is not an answer.
MP12
1. No future site-specific proposals for hydrocarbon extraction are included in the minerals plan.
2. The policy is inadequate because it has failed to take consideration of the impacts on climate change, on the detrimental impact on the environment, the local community and the water supply.
3. Seismology experts are recommending 500m separation from former mine workings and 850m from any fault lines – these recommendations should be followed.
4. Other Plans have stronger policies with regard to climate change and hydrocarbons (e.g.Cumbria and Kirklees) and Nottinghamshire should be leading way.
1. There needs to be proper consideration to the evolving awareness and scientific recommendations to the damaging environmental impacts of hydrocarbon extraction (fracking) for shale.
2. We need a separate detailed policy in order to safeguard communities and the environment.
SP4
1. The existing plan is inadequate in relation to recent developments in science and policy that now recognise our climate emergency. It is no longer adequate to ‘reduce impact’ of greenhouse gases and global warming.
2. There needs to be fresh approaches so that we change direction away from fossil fuels altogether. Only then will national targets be reached. The Minerals Policy is a good place to start.
3. Government has now committed to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 – this is a start and NCC need to address this. To ignore this policy is dangerous.
4. We know that 2050 is not soon enough to address the emergency...but to do nothing is not an answer.
The County Council need to declare a Climate Emergency and make new plans to address it for all our sakes.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 164
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Minerals Products Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Paragarph 3.42 refers to the restrictions on barge sizes upstream of Cromwell Lock may (emphasis added) restrict the viability of barging of minerals downstream to Nottingham. While viability of operations is a matter for our members to argue the fact is that the restrictions on barge sizes will obviously restrict viability and this should be acknowledged in the text to make the plan effective.
See attachment
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 175
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Mick George
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Whilst the objective of the policy is laudable certain considerations are either not clear, or have been missed.
2. Firstly, the supporting text rather oversimplifies the provision of alternative transport for minerals by only mentioning the long distances over which rail is viable. For example, in addition to this requirement the provision of rail or barge transport absolutely requires immediate proximity to the transport route, the ability to provide loading facilities at the quarry, plus a network of receiving depots or a concentrated market location, a large output to support the investment and a large reserve to amortise the investment, none of which gets a mention. This results in a seriously misleading impression that not to offer alternatives to road transport is a matter of choice. Rail transport is extremely rare given that there are over 500 aggregate quarries only 30 or so of which are rail connected. Barge transport is even rarer. There is for the vast majority of cases no choice other than road transport and this needs to be firmly understood by planners and the public. It is proper to require consideration of rail and barge where appropriate but this should not be underestimated.
3. Secondly, minimising travel is a major consideration of national policy for sustainable transport (NPPF para 103). Therefore, it follows that in a local policy on sustainable transport similar considerations will apply. Not only does this relate to the use of alternative transport modes but also to that which reduces the levels of imports to an area, where local material can be used instead, which is a different point to sites being in close proximity to markets; this is about reducing the levels of material traded unnecessarily between areas. This is in accordance with the Plan which says that sand and gravel is a relatively low cost mineral and is not generally cost effective to transport over long distances. Thus where sand and gravel is transported over considerable distances (of up to 70 miles) it indicates there is a severe shortage of material in the market. The plan should actively seek to provide minerals supplies indigenously in accordance with national policy and should repatriate material imported from other areas, if it can be supplied locally.
4. Moreover, the policy should encourage the “backhauling” of materials such that site that utilise inert waste to aid in the restoration, should be encouraged to transport such material using the same material exporting mineral wherever practicable to do so. Such a proposal is wholly compliant with basic sustainable objectives reducing CO2 levels considerably.
5. The observation that pipelines and conveyors can be used to transport minerals internally needs to be qualified by several practical realities. There are environmental advantages in the use of a conveyor over dumptrucks; it can be generally less obtrusive, quieter and less dusty. However, it could raise problems with maintenance, power supply, vulnerability to vandalism, and is relatively inflexible requiring the transport of large quantities of mineral from a fixed point to be economically viable. The use of pipeline is even more environmentally beneficial because it eliminates almost all forms of adverse environmental impact but clearly demands a wet working and substantial investment. The size of the site, its reserves, the distance to the processing plant, the nature of the mineral and the shape of the site plus its location all contribute towards decisions about whether alternative means of transport to dumptrucks is viable.
6. It may be objected that such objections do not go to the issue of soundness. However, MGL would argue that if the Plan is to make references to alternative means of transport, it should not mislead by being oversimplistic in its explanations lest users of the plan get the wrong idea.
7. The reasons for the proposed changes are that the policy and text is not justified or effective.
See attached
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 228
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Brett Aggregates Limited
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
BAL supports policy however amendments are required.
See attachments
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 256
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Tarmac
Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Whilst seeking to support the use of sustainable modes of transport, the policy should be
worded to acknowledge/recognise the potential for impact upon the viability of mineral
extraction.
Minerals can only be worked where they are found. The requirement to be located close to
proposed markets is overly onerous, not positively prepared or an effective strategy and is
therefore considered to be unsound. The value of the product and the availability locally will
determine the distance it needs to travel. The pull of resource into the South Yorkshire and
Doncaster market areas is a good example of this. It is considered that this policy is overly
onerous and discredits the geographical spread/locational strategy which is being pursued
by the Mineral Planning Authority.
See attached
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 268
Received: 23/10/2019
Respondent: Blaxton Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In isolation the proposals to develop sites at Austerfield, Misson, Barnby Moor and Scrooby seem innocuous, however when considered alongside existing and proposed developments in both Nottinghamshire and the DMBC area, we have serious concerns about the impact on our communities, particularly the potential increase in Heavy Goods and other vehicles on an already busy road network in and around our villages.
We would oppose the development of these sites as proposed in the recent planning applications and question their inclusion in the Minerals Plan without conditions being set, within the plan, to mitigate their potential impact on our communities.
Please see submission for further detail of the evidence demonstrating the points raised above.
Please see attachments
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 270
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Auckley Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In isolation the proposals to develop sites at Austerfield, Misson, Barnby Moor and Scrooby seem innocuous, however when considered alongside existing and proposed developments in both Nottinghamshire and the DMBC area, we have serious concerns about the impact on our communities, particularly the potential increase in Heavy Goods and other vehicles on an already busy road network in and around our villages.
We would oppose the development of these sites as proposed in the recent planning applications and question their inclusion in the Minerals Plan without conditions being set, within the plan, to mitigate their potential impact on our communities.
Please see attachments for further evidence submitted alongside the above statement.
Please see attachments
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 271
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Finningley Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In isolation the proposals to develop sites at Austerfield, Misson, Barnby Moor and Scrooby seem innocuous, however when considered alongside existing and proposed developments in both Nottinghamshire and the DMBC area, we have serious concerns about the impact on our communities, particularly the potential increase in Heavy Goods and other vehicles on an already busy road network in and around our villages.
We would oppose the development of these sites as proposed in the recent planning applications and question their inclusion in the Minerals Plan without conditions being set, within the plan, to mitigate their potential impact on our communities.
Please see attachments for further detail and evidence provided.
Please see attachments
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 272
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Cantley-with-Branton Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In isolation the proposals to develop sites at Austerfield, Misson, Barnby Moor and Scrooby seem innocuous, however when considered alongside existing and proposed developments in both Nottinghamshire and the DMBC area, we have serious concerns about the impact on our communities, particularly the potential increase in Heavy Goods and other vehicles on an already busy road network in and around our villages.
We would oppose the development of these sites as proposed in the recent planning applications and question their inclusion in the Minerals Plan without conditions being set, within the plan, to mitigate their potential impact on our communities.
Please see attachment for evidence submitted with this representation.
Please see attachments
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 276
Received: 04/10/2019
Respondent: Highways England
We support the proposals set out in Policy SP4 regarding the use of sustainable transport such as barge, rail and pipeline, as well as the consideration that will be given to site location, to minimise the reliance on HGV traffic which can have a significant impact on the performance of the highway network.
Planning applications for site allocations should consider the traffic impacts and potential physical impacts on the integrity of the highway network. Where necessary, mitigation should be proposed to ensure that traffic generated by the development can be safely accommodated. Transport Assessments should be prepared through the planning process and carried out in line with the DfT Circular 02/2013.
We support the proposals set out in Policy SP4 regarding the use of sustainable transport such as barge, rail and pipeline, as well as the consideration that will be given to site location, to minimise the reliance on HGV traffic which can have a significant impact on the performance of the highway network.
Planning applications for site allocations should consider the traffic impacts and potential physical impacts on the integrity of the highway network. Where necessary, mitigation should be proposed to ensure that traffic generated by the development can be safely accommodated. Transport Assessments should be prepared through the planning process and carried out in line with the DfT Circular 02/2013.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 284
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: IGas Energy
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
IGas supports the policy to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport of minerals and the inclusion of pipelines as an option as recommended in previous representations . IGas currently utilises pipelines in existing operations and which reduce the potential use of HGVs to transport oil and gas and will continue to do so where local circumstances permrt.
IGas supports the policy to minimise traffic movements in the development of minerals 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 , sJ. However, the policy must align with the principal that minerals, including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found. IGas remains concerned that the policy requirir g mineral workings and mineral related developments to be located 'within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes in order to avoid residen tial areas, minor roads , and minimise the impact of road transportation' remains unchanged and does not recognise this.
See attachment
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 304
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
We contend that the policy is unsound because:
a) The objectives of the Policy have not been appropriately integrated into site selection decisions and Policy SP4 is not effective.
b) Accordingly, the MLPPV as a whole does not have sufficient regard for sustainable transport and is not an appropriate strategy, failing the ‘justified’ test of paragraph 35 of the NPPF
Supporting detail is included in the full representation
See attached