MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 3
Received: 01/10/2019
Respondent: Nottingham City Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
There are serious concerns that the development could cause substantial harm to the Green Belt, habitat, ecology, the landscape, air quality, amenity of the public, rights of way and loss to Best and Most versatile Agricultural Land.
A balanced judgement needs to be made about all the conflicting issues and any potential adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health in the allocation of minerals sites. The City Council is of the view that in light of these significant concerns, they are so substantive as to make the allocation of the Mill Hill site unjustified and unsound.
The Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis allocation (MP2p) is being determined as a planning application by both Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council (17/00930/PMFUL3) as the site straddles the boundaries between the two mineral authorities. Approx. 11 hectares of the site is within the City boundary which equates to approx. 12% of the whole proposed site.
There are numerous concerns raised in the consultation of the planning applications about the information submitted and the potential harm arising from the proposed development from a range of technical and statutory consultees including both Minerals Authorities determining the individual applications.
In the determination of the planning application recent letters have been sent by Nottinghamshire County Council as the lead mineral authority setting out identified harms of the development, inviting the applicant to address these matters as the application currently does not incorporate sufficient information to reach an informed conclusion regarding the significance of these environmental and amenity impacts.
Specifically, serious concerns are raised about the impact of the development in its current form on the Green Belt which is considered to be ‘inappropriate development’ and which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Strong concerns are also raised about habitat loss including impacts on Local Wildlife Sites and SSSIs in and close to the site. Further concerns are also raised about ecological impacts on protected species. The potential impacts on heritage assets also raises deep concerns including likely harm to setting of Clifton Hall (Grade 1) and its Registered Parks and Garden (Grade 2) both through the extraction and restoration phases of development. There are also concerns that the development could cause unacceptable landscape and visual impacts and lesser concern on air quality, public amenity, rights of ways and loss of some best and most versatile agricultural land.
It is acknowledged that a request has been made to the applicant to provide additional information and to amend the scheme to try and overcome these issues. The NPPF is also clear that it is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, a balanced judgement needs to be made about all the conflicting issues and any potential adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health in the allocation of minerals sites. The City Council is of the view that in light of these significant strong concerns, they are so substantive as to make the allocation of the Mill Hill site unjustified and unsound.
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 8
Received: 03/10/2019
Respondent: Cromwell Parish Meeting
The Minerals Local Plan is: Legally Compliant,
Sound,
and Complies with the duty to co-operate.
Cromwell Parish Meeting welcomes this plan.
The Meeting would, however, oppose any new or extended quarry in the parish after the closure of the existing Cemex quarry in 2022. In particular, any quarry extension towards Carlton-on-Trent would be strongly opposed, since it would victimise the family with their disabled son living at "Burnside".
The Minerals Local Plan is: Legally Compliant,
Sound,
and Complies with the duty to co-operate.
Cromwell Parish Meeting welcomes this plan.
The Meeting would, however, oppose any new or extended quarry in the parish after the closure of the existing Cemex quarry in 2022. In particular, any quarry extension towards Carlton-on-Trent would be strongly opposed, since it would victimise the family with their disabled son living at "Burnside".
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 12
Received: 07/10/2019
Respondent: Sutton Parish Council
The Parish Council supports Policy MP2 in that it generally promotes extensions of existing quarry sites with a single new "green field" site being promoted i.e. MP2p Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis.
Policy MP2, allocates 5 extensions to existing quarries (MP2k-o) and 1 new quarry (MP2p) which total 11.8 million tonnes.
The Parish Council supports Policy MP2 in that it generally promotes extensions of existing quarry sites with a single new "green field" site being promoted i.e. MP2p Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis.
Policy MP2, allocates 5 extensions to existing quarries (MP2k-o) and 1 new quarry (MP2p) which total 11.8 million tonnes.
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 17
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong
Justified: We support the policy of spatial distribution of aggregates supply and the consideration given to proximity to the main locations of demand.
Justified: We support the policy of spatial distribution of aggregates supply and the consideration given to proximity to the main locations of demand.
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 18
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong
Justified: We support the priority being given to the extension of existing sites on environmental grounds, providing there is no unduly adverse effect on local communities. This approach also enhances the prospects for good quality restoration of sites.
Justified: We support the priority being given to the extension of existing sites on environmental grounds, providing there is no unduly adverse effect on local communities. This approach also enhances the prospects for good quality restoration of sites.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 27
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Mr Ben Wilson
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
MP2 is unsound and unjustified. The Mill Hill nearBarton in Fabis site is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal. Therefore its inclusion and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford in the new Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified
MP2 is unsound and unjustified. The Mill Hill nearBarton in Fabis site is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal. Therefore its inclusion and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford in the new Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 48
Received: 04/10/2019
Respondent: Shelford Against Gravel Extraction (SAGE)
Form is blank
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 56
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Rushcliffe Borough Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? No
As set out in our representation on Policy MP1 (Aggregate Provision), the provision of aggregate required to meet demand should be reduced to 29.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel. This reflects the most up-to-date evidence in the LAA (2019).
Given this reduction the Minerals Planning Authority should, prior to publication, have reviewed its site selections and considered whether demand could be met through existing permitted reserves and the expansion of existing sites.
The total amount of remaining reserves identified in policy MP2 (MP2a-j) amounts to 23.31 million tonnes (not 17.5 million tonnes as stated in paragraph 4.17) and proposed extensions to existing permitted quarries amounts to 8.8 million tonnes. Combined these total 32.11 million tonnes, 2.91 million more than is required within the most recent LAA.
Policy SP1 within the publication draft sets out the strategy for the supply of minerals. It states that a) an adequate supply of minerals will be identified during the plan period and b) priority will be given to the extension of existing sites, where economically, socially, and environmentally acceptable. In accordance with this approach and considering the permitted reserves and extensions identified in Policy MP2, there does not appear to be a need for an additional new quarry at Barton Hill, or elsewhere. Its inclusion is therefore not justified.
See attached documents
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 59
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Burton Joyce Parish Council
The concerned raised relate to the previously proposed site at Shelford, where many homes within Burton Joyce are close to the proposed extraction site. The concerns around this site relate to three principles. Firstly, environmental and amenity as since the product would be taken out by vehicle this will add air pollutants, dust and noise. Secondly, traffic, as the road network is already congested and adding further lorries to the road network will add to issue and the pollution. Thirdly, extraction would make the right bank vulnerable to heavy surges and devastate inhabited areas of Burton Joyce.
This is a joint submission from Burton Joyce Parish Council and Burton Joyce Village Society. Our concerns for this Parish were fully set out in our separate submissions at the earlier and exclusively concerned with a proposed site for gravel extraction which was then under consideration but not included in the present plan, i.e. Shelford. Although that site is on the opposite side of the River Trent, the political boundary obscures the fact that many homes in Burton Joyce are closer to the then proposed extraction site (320m at the closest) than any part of the Shelford village itself.
Our concerns are under three principle headings;
1. Environmental and amenity.
Air pollution has been shown in many very recent studies to be a major threat to health, implication in breathing aliments and lung disease, cancers and dementia. The operation of any extraction site in the Shelford area would be done by diesel-driven machinery creating some of the most severe air pollutants, and also thick dust. It would also cause constant noise pollution. Our village is downwind of the prevailing winds in the area and would therefore suffer more severely from both problems. Lorry or the suggested barge traffic to remove the product from the site would create further such pollution. The landscape character of the Trent riverbank is deeply appreciated locally and would be totally destroyed by such workings. The existing wildlife under the agricultural and pasture regime is a valued contribution to this area and also under threat from mineral extraction.
2. Traffic
The local road system in Burton Joyce, notably the A612, is already inadequate, and a great part of the lorry traffic, estimated by the site owners at several lorries per hour, generated by an extraction operation, would use this road to reach markets in the Nottingham City area. Both the congestion and the resulting pollution by traffic fumes and noise are unacceptable in the village itself. The severe traffic problems that would be created outside Burton Joyce, both in a Westerly direction and on the A6097, would also cause severe difficulty for local people.
3. Flood risk.
Hundreds of Burton Joyce houses are in high flood risk zones. While a catastrophic flood is not a high probability it is a severe threat in that the damage to property would be in the order of millions and the disruption to the lives of occupants, and to the villages as a whole, would be overwhelming. Gravel digging would make the right bank of the Trent vulnerable to a heavy surge from upstream, which is increasingly likely following improved flood defenses there, and the increase in extreme weather conditions due to climate change. Such a surge could breach the weakened riverbank, disrupting the course of the river (historically unstable) and devastating the inhabited areas of Burton Joyce.
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 60
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Burton Joyce Village Society
The concerned raised relate to the previously proposed site at Shelford, where many homes within Burton Joyce are close to the proposed extraction site. The concerns around this site relate to three principles. Firstly, environmental and amenity as since the product would be taken out by vehicle this will add air pollutants, dust and noise. Secondly, traffic, as the road network is already congested and adding further lorries to the road network will add to issue and the pollution. Thirdly, extraction would make the right bank vulnerable to heavy surges and devastate inhabited areas of Burton Joyce
This is a joint submission from Burton Joyce Parish Council and Burton Joyce Village Society. Our concerns for this Parish were fully set out in our separate submissions at the earlier and exclusively concerned with a proposed site for gravel extraction which was then under consideration but not included in the present plan, i.e. Shelford. Although that site is on the opposite side of the River Trent, the political boundary obscures the fact that many homes in Burton Joyce are closer to the then proposed extraction site (320m at the closest) than any part of the Shelford village itself. Our concerns are under three principle headings; 1. Environmental and amenity. Air pollution has been shown in many very recent studies to be a major threat to health, implication in breathing aliments and lung disease, cancers and dementia. The operation of any extraction site in the Shelford area would be done by diesel-driven machinery creating some of the most severe air pollutants, and also thick dust. It would also cause constant noise pollution. Our village is downwind of the prevailing winds in the area and would therefore suffer more severely from both problems. Lorry or the suggested barge traffic to remove the product from the site would create further such pollution. The landscape character of the Trent riverbank is deeply appreciated locally and would be totally destroyed by such workings. The existing wildlife under the agricultural and pasture regime is a valued contribution to this area and also under threat from mineral extraction. 2. Traffic The local road system in Burton Joyce, notably the A612, is already inadequate, and a great part of the lorry traffic, estimated by the site owners at several lorries per hour, generated by an extraction operation, would use this road to reach markets in the Nottingham City area. Both the congestion and the resulting pollution by traffic fumes and noise are unacceptable in the village itself. The severe traffic problems that would be created outside Burton Joyce, both in a Westerly direction and on the A6097, would also cause severe difficulty for local people. 3. Flood risk. Hundreds of Burton Joyce houses are in high flood risk zones. While a catastrophic flood is not a high probability it is a severe threat in that the damage to property would be in the order of millions and the disruption to the lives of occupants, and to the villages as a whole, would be overwhelming. Gravel digging would make the right bank of the Trent vulnerable to a heavy surge from upstream, which is increasingly likely following improved flood defenses there, and the increase in extreme weather conditions due to climate change. Such a surge could breach the weakened riverbank, disrupting the course of the river (historically unstable) and devastating the inhabited areas of Burton Joyce.
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 69
Received: 09/10/2019
Respondent: Greenfield Associates
The plan is considered sound and no changes are required.
We consider the current plan sound and doesn't require any changes.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 152
Received: 08/10/2019
Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
In conjunction with our comments in relation to Policy MP1, Lincolnshire County Council's Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team objects to Policy MP2 because it does not make sufficient provision for sand and gravel extraction in Nottinghamshire over the Plan Period.
The number of sites allocated is based on a deflated provision rate as argued in relation to Policy MP1. As a consequence, we consider that the productive capacity of the proposed allocations does not provide sufficient flexibility to respond to increases in demand. Furthermore, when referring to the delivery schedule in Appendix 1 of the publication draft, it appears the majority of the proposed allocations could be worked out prior to the end of the plan period, which would further constrain productive capacity.
MP1
Lincolnshire County Council's Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team objects to policy MP1 on the
basis that the policy is not sound in its current form, because it does not make sufficient
provision for sand and gravel extraction within Nottinghamshire over the plan period.
Policy MP1 has not been positively prepared: The provision is based on a Local Aggregate Assessment
which has failed to objectively assess the needs of the County. This is because the proposed provision rate of 1.7mt per annum for sand and gravel is based on depressed average sales figures which do not take into account Nottinghamshire's increased reliance on imports of sand and gravel from Lincolnshire to meet demand. Our concerns in this regard have been well documented in our representations to earlier drafts of the emerging Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan and on-going
correspondence with Nottinghamshire County Council.
Policy MP1 is not justified: There is no reasonable justification in the publication draft or the supporting Local Aggregate Assessment as to why Nottinghamshire County Council need to continue to rely on significant imports of sand and gravel from Lincolnshire, rather than making appropriate provision for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates from its own substantial indigenous
resources. In this respect is should be pointed out that historically Nottinghamshire was the most important producer of sand and gravel in the East Midlands, and was only overtaken by Lincolnshire due to the aftermath of the recession when some mineral operators temporarily rationalised their operations close to the county boundary. The extent of the available sand and gravel resource in Nottinghamshire was demonstrated by the significantly greater number of sites originally proposed for allocation in the withdrawn submission draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan (Feb/March 2016).
Policy MP1 is not effective: In not addressing the above cross-boundary issues, the proposed sand and gravel provision is insufficient to meet demand in the County without substantial imports from Lincolnshire. This is masked by the current practice adopted in the Local Aggregate Assessment of basing the landbank on the "10-year average sales" approach which inflates the landbank calculations This is deceptive in that it gives the impression that there are no supply issues in Nottinghamshire.
Policy MP1 is not consistent with national policy. In not addressing the above issues, the proposed sand and gravel provision rate is contrary to the NPPF as it fails to have due regard to this "other relevant local
information".
It is recommended that an appropriate uplift is applied to the proposed sand and gravel provision rate in order to account for the demand that is currently driving imports from Lincolnshire.
Furthermore, given Nottinghamshire's importance as a sand and gravel producer, the level of provision should be based on the assumption that sales in Nottinghamshire will return to a similar proportion of total sales in the East Midlands achieved prior to the recession.
Representatives of Lincolnshire County Council's Planning Policy Team would like the opportunity to participate in the hearing sessions in order to discuss our concerns.
MP2
In conjunction with our comments in relation to Policy MP1, Lincolnshire County Council's Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team objects to Policy MP2 because it does not make sufficient provision for sand and gravel extraction in Nottinghamshire over the Plan Period.
The number of sites allocated is based on a deflated provision rate as argued in relation to Policy MP1. As a consequence, we consider that the productive capacity of the proposed allocations does not provide sufficient flexibility to respond to increases in demand. Furthermore, when referring to the delivery schedule in Appendix 1 of the publication draft, it appears the majority of the proposed allocations could be worked out prior to the end of the plan period, which would further constrain productive capacity.
Allocating additional sites for sand and gravel extraction based on an increased provision rate would ensure a greater productive capacity for the duration of the plan period and allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in demand, whilst in turn reducing the reliance on imports from Lincolnshire, for which there is no apparent justification, and ensuring Nottinghamshire remains an important provider of Sand and Gravel in the East Midlands.
Representatives of Lincolnshire County Council's Planning Policy Team would like the opportunity to participate in the hearing sessions in order to discuss our concerns.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 178
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Mick George
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Policy MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision
1. Bearing in mind the previous analysis of MP1 there is a shortfall in allocated and sites and MGL proposes the addition of its Flash Farm site to the list of sand and gravel allocations.
Proposed Site Allocation – Flash Farm (see plan No F18/15/01)
2. MGL has no comment about the specifics of the allocations except to reiterate the need for more provision in the form of new quarries and a more equitable spread of sites among the industry. Thus MGL wishes to promote is own site at Flash Farm, Averham. This site was allocated in the former abandoned Plan in 2016, and clearly retains a number of advantages which make it suitable for working. This means that it has no overriding adverse environmental impacts and the only reason it appears not to have been included in this plan is the change of approach to local plan provision following the County Council elections of 2017.
3. This site located on the A617 at Averham west of Newark contains 3.08 Million tonnes and would produce about 200,000 tonnes of high quality aggregate a year for markets to the north of Nottingham, Ashfield, Mansfield and possibly Derbyshire beyond. Some material is also likely to be sold in the Newark area.
4. In response to NCC’s call for sites in 2018 MGL submitted various environmental reports and working and restoration details to the Council to support its proposal of this site. These documents are assumed to be already in the Examination and are not repeated here. What follows is a summary of the environmental characteristics of the site and its advantages.
5. The environmental appraisals undertaken have raised no issues that would warrant refusal of the development proposals, which are in conformity with the emerging development plan and confirm that the site is eminently suitable as a Local Plan allocation.
6. The site is located partially within the western floodplain of the north-eastward flowing River Trent and consists of gravels and sandy gravels concealed in part by shallow deposits of alluvium. The mineral deposit is characterised by low fines content and high percentage of gravel. The gravel fraction is predominantly fine with occasional cobbles whilst the sand is medium grained and these consist primarily of quartz and quartzite with subordinate amounts of flint, chert and sandstone.
7. The site lies in the Trent Valley in the Trent Washlands Landscape Character Area and the proposed extraction area is largely flat lying at about 14m AOD and located in open countryside characterised by large fields, low hedges with sporadic hedgerow trees, and occasional blocks of woodland on higher ground to the north. It is also fairly isolated, with the property of Flash Farm itself, located 160 metres to the north. All other properties are at the villages of Averham and Kelham which are 540m and 660m to the south east and north east respectively.
The Flash Farm site comprises a number of agricultural fields, sub-divided primarily by fencing, under arable and pasture use.
9. The site is crossed by a 400 Kva overhead power line with three substantial stanchions within the land in question. The wider landscape is dominated by adverse detractors consisting of the Staythorpe Power Station (to the south) and power lines leading from it as well as the dominant flue stack from the sugar beet factory to the north-east.
10. As the mineral extraction area is not sub-divided by any hedgerows, the scheme of working therefore importantly does not require the removal of any sections of vegetation (i.e. hedgerow or trees) whatsoever.
11. The quarry has been designed to reinstate the land in a sensitive fashion seeking to apply best environmental practice and give practical effect to strategic government initiatives on protection of soil resources and habitat creation using importation of suitable inert material as a catalyst for the beneficial restoration of the land to be reinstated to its existing “best and most versatile” agricultural land status.
12. Moreover, the opportunity has afforded conditions to create bio-diversity action plan priority habitats such as species rich grassland and lowland wet grassland as well as some 2.3km of new hedgerows (which currently do not exist).
13. The proposed scheme of working has been devised to reflect current landscape improvement and nature conservation policies. Net biodiversity gain would be achieved through the creation of a cohesive network of new habitats, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity. The application site itself is currently of limited ecological value with a majority of the site consisting of intensively managed fields with very limited hedgerows of variable quality within the site itself.
14. Accordingly, the scheme provides a high standard of mitigation by delivering net gain in environmental capital and strategic bio-diversity networks. Such benefits to bio-diversity are requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance as well as emerging Mineral Local Plan policies which contains a “bio-diversity led” philosophy for the restoration of quarry workings.
15. Given the site’s location the proposed scheme of working can readily provide effective protection against unreasonable noise and dust emissions with the site design carefully aimed to balance protection of the local environment with the requirement to extract and process mineral.
16. The site access will be directly onto the A617 upgrading an existing gated access. The A617 is part of the Strategic Highway Network and policy objectives (locally and nationally) support the use of such roads to transport goods and materials (including minerals).
17. The Flash Farm site lies to the west of Kelham Bridge which is ideally located to serve markets to the north and west. Without Flash Farm being present other quarries would have to transport material across Kelham Bridge to serve those same markets. Congestion around Kelham Bridge has been highlighted by the County Council and residents as being of concern although the A 617 is identified as part of the County’s Core Road Network. Accordingly, Flash Farm would have a neutral effect as movements west over the bridge would be balanced by movements in the other direction.
18. As such, MGL commends the Flash Farm site to the Examination as a site specific allocation.
19. The Reason for the proposed change is that the site allocation policy is contrary to national policy and guidance, is not justified and not effective.
See attached
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 181
Received: 09/10/2019
Respondent: Mrs M Knight
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
MP2 Sand and Gravel provision is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED.
I am writing regarding the allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis ( under MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision) which is unsound and unjustified and should be removed .
The site will have an impact on the local natural environment Attenbourough Nature Reserve in particular is at risk from noise and pollution from the proposed site..Deliveries of materials would be closer to major markets and be more sustainable If from Shelford to Colwick wharf.
SO1 Improving the sustainability of minerals development is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED
MP2 Sand and Gravel provision is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED.
We are living at a time of crisis for the environment we need to be aware of environmental issues at all times .
Support
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 216
Received: 28/09/2019
Respondent: Carlton on Trent Parish Council
Carlton on Trent Parish Council felt the plan was legally compliant but would like to be reassured that should any aspect change which would result in the need to review the level of provision from the identified sites, there would be further consultation before any change to the plan could occur.
The council is very concerned about the potential of an extension to the Cromwell site and its impact on the river Trent and the village of Carlton on Trent.
Carlton on Trent Parish Council felt the plan was legally compliant but would like to be reassured that should any aspect change which would result in the need to review the level of provision from the identified sites, there would be further consultation before any change to the plan could occur.
The council is very concerned about the potential of an extension to the Cromwell site and its impact on the river Trent and the village of Carlton on Trent.
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 220
Received: 10/10/2019
Respondent: Cemex UK operations
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Policy MP2
Previous responses have been made by CEMEX to this policy which have not been taken into account in this Publication Draft. A reserve assessment fro Cromwell has resulted in 0.76mt less at Cromwell and so the figures in Policy MP" are incorrect and there are not 17.5mt of permitted reserves, there are 0.76mt less than that. The policy does not allow for sufficient flexibility, as the reserve figures are estimates and further assessment work often means a reduction in volumes. There is not enough flexibility in the plan to allow for the uncertainties of geological investigation nor the mitigation consequences of Environmental Impact Assessment that can often mean that some reserves cannot be worked for other reasons. CEMEXs site at Cromwell North, for which an application has been submitted, should be included.
Policy MP1
This policy has been based on evidence from the 2017 LAA, which relied on data to the end of 2016. It is not considered that teh LAA, and this policy, make enough provision for sand and gravel going forward. The LAA notes that the 10 year average sales figure for sand and gravel continues to fall as a greater period of recession data is taken into account and that sales have remained flat. Planning Practice is clear that LAAs should forecast the demand for aggregates based on the 10-year rolling sales data and other relevant local information. While the LAA discusses future growth, this is not reflected in the future provision. The planned house building rates are similar to the completions seen in 2005 and the extraction rate in that year was over 3mt, which is almost double the 10-year rolling avergae of 1.7mt, and this does not take into account other infrastructure projects. The LAA also notes that the replacement of worked out quarries has remained low, but it takes time for the industry to find new sites and put forward for inclusion in the plan have not been taken forward. This is a significant under provision therefore and it is considered that the requirement for sand and gravel should be significantly higher. 3mt per annum, would equate to a requirement for 57mt over the plan period of 19 years, and not 32.3mt.
Policy MP2
Previous responses have been made by CEMEX to this policy which have not been taken into account in this Publication Draft. A reserve assessment fro Cromwell has resulted in 0.76mt less at Cromwell and so the figures in Policy MP" are incorrect and there are not 17.5mt of permitted reserves, there are 0.76mt less than that. The policy does not allow for sufficient flexibility, as the reserve figures are estimates and further assessment work often means a reduction in volumes. There is not enough flexibility in the plan to allow for the uncertainties of geological investigation nor the mitigation consequences of Environmnetal Impact Assessment that can often mean that some reserves cannot be worked for other reasons. CEMEXs site at Cromwell North, for which an application has been submitted, should be included.
Changes
Increase forecast demand to 57 million tonnes
Amend reserves at Cromwell to 1.36mt
Add Cromwell North quarry 1.8mt
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 232
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Brett Aggregates Limited
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In respect of Policy MP2 additional sites will need to be allocated. As currently the policy only provides for an additional 11.8MT to be added to the current landbank when the actual shortfall is 60.82MT. This means that additionally a further 49.02MT of reserves are needed to make the plan sound. BAL propose that the It should be noted that the existing reserves identified in Policy MP2 add up to a higher figure (23.31MT) than that used in the following justifying paragraphs site at Shelford which is capable of delivering a total of 6.5MT should be allocated.
See attachments
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 263
Received: 11/10/2019
Respondent: Tarmac
Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
It is considered that Policy MP2 is not positively prepared or an effective strategy and is therefore unsound. Insufficient sand and gravel reserves are being allocated to ensure a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel.
Tarmac are supportive of the approach to work permitted reserves as well as allocating extensions to existing operations and through the provision of new greenfield sites. There needs to be allowance in the Plan for both extensions and new greenfield sites. However,
the Plan should provide flexibility and policy should be supportive in securing extensions to existing operations, this ensures a continuation in supply without sterilising mineral reserves. The Plan needs to build in an element of flexibility to address the issue of long
term longevity of mineral operations in Nottinghamshire – only 4 sand and gravel sites identified in Policy MP2 have long term and significant production capacity. There should not be a reliance on a Review of the Plan to fill any identified need gaps during the Plan
period. These should be addressed from the start to provide security/assurances to operators to secure investment. Potential ‘Preferred Areas’ or Areas of Search’ may assist in the process.
We support the Council in adopting a locational approach to mineral development sites to ensure there is a spread in sites to meet anticipated demand. However, operational capacity constraints still apply (imposed by plant capacity, planning conditions or HGV routing
agreements) which can limit production / distribution to meet demand in some market areas. These are all important considerations in locating new sites for mineral development.
There should not be a sole reliance on their physical location in the County. Besthorpe Quarry and Girton Quarry (currently mothballed) for example have vehicle movement restrictions through S106 planning agreements which forces HGV routing northward. As a
result, those sites are generally more aligned to the North Nottinghamshire / Doncaster / Humberside market areas as opposed to Newark.
Tarmac are very disappointed and surprised that the Botany Bay Quarry site has not been included as an allocation in the Plan. The permitted resource and proposed allocations do not at any time over the Plan period meet the proposed annual requirement for sand and gravel (1.7mt). The Tarmac revised Delivery Schedule (appendix 1a and 1b) clearly illustrates
this point. Reference is made in the most recent LAA that sand and gravel reserves from the Idle Valley are depleting whilst recognising the important role they play in maintaining sand and gravel supply within and outside the County (paragraph 4.15 of the Draft MLP). Further
commentary is provided in regard to the sustainability appraisal and site assessment document at the end of these representations. It is not clear what the justification is for removing Botany Bay as a suitable and deliverable allocation when the site has been included for allocation in previous Plan drafts. The MPA’s Duty to Cooperate is stating that supply from Nottinghamshire to the South Yorkshire market will continue in the mid-long
term. However, the delivery schedule is clear that there are insufficient reserves being allocated to meet this historic (411,000 tonnes pe annum) supply. An assumption that Sturton will produce 500,000 tonnes per annum is not realistic and Tarmac have confirmed
that tonnages from this site are unlikely to exceed much beyond 100,000 tonnes per annum.
There is a clear case for additional sand and gravel sites to be allocated in the north of the County.
There is also a clear case for additional allocation of green field sand and gravel sites to be allocated to come into production during the Plan period. The serious decline in sand and gravel reserves and projected production capacity in Leicestershire is clearly evidenced
through the Leicestershire Mineral & Waste Local Plan review and sites have been promoted into the Nottinghamshire Local Mineral Plan review to meet that identified shortfall and the consequential need for alternative supply from adjoining authority areas. Tarmac’s promoted site ‘Great North Road (North)’, near Kelham meets that objective and would deliver a long term sand and gravel production site with a sustainable output of 250,000 tonnes per annum to serve the Nottingham (potentially as a replacement to Cromwell) and North East Leicestershire market over the plan period to 2036. The Great North Road (North) site should therefore be allocated in the Plan. Again, Preferred Areas or Areas of Search may be a more effective strategy in regards to long term supply.
The Great North Road (South) site has a proven significant future sand and gravel resource
which would provide a natural long term extension to the Great North Road (North) site.
The combined sand and gravel resources at the “North” and “South” sites would provide a
stable long term supply facility to meet the likely strong demand for construction materials
in the Nottingham / NE Leicestershire markets throughout and beyond the 2036 Plan period.
In addition, Tarmac’s proposed new green field extraction site at Burridge Farm, which is
proposed to use river barge transportation to feed sand and gravel to a proposed new
processing plant at the former Cromwell Quarry site previously operated by Lafarge, would
also provide some additional support production capacity in the second part of the Plan
period. The Cromwell plant site is well situated with good access onto the A1 interchange at
Cromwell. The Burridge Farm site would not have capacity to operate at high output levels
due to likely physical constraints on barge transportation along the River Trent through
Cromwell Lock.
See attached
Object
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version
Representation ID: 274
Received: 02/10/2019
Respondent: Peter Doyle
Number of people: 2
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In regard to the above notification, we would like to comment on the above consultation.
1. Is the plan legally compliant?
We do not think this plan is legally compliant as it did not adhere to the decision made by the Secretary of State Independent Inspector in the 2005 Adopted Mineral Local Plan which was not complied with.
As our objection relates to quarrying in the idle valley, then this too was the objective of
the Secretary of State Independent Inspector who had stipulated in the plan, that there
should be no more proposals to quarry in the idle valley until the proposed quarry, Sturton Le Steeple, was near to exhaustion. This was the site choice chosen by the independent inspector.
The Sturton Le Steeple quarry has over 20 years of mineral reserves, and a possible extension of a further 6 years. However, the mineral operator, Tarmac who owns the rights to both Botany Bay and Sturton Le Steeple, appealed at the consultation, that the Botany
Bay site should also gain approval - however the independent inspector disagreed and
stipulated that no further sites would be needed, due to the extent of the mineral reserves in the Sturton Le Steeple quarry.
As the Mineral Local Plan can span years before the final decision is taken, then the decision taken by the Secretary of State should not be taken lightly, either by the mineral operator or the planning department.
However this site at Sturton Le Steeple, after three years of gaining its planning approval,
was mothballed for 5 years on the request of Tarmac, and consequently approved by the planning department. The NCC in the call for sites stage then allowed further sites to be submitted from the idle valley which included Botany Bay, the site the independent inspector had previously refused.
We are now in a unfavourable position, of having further quarrying in an area which is now decimating the area on the A638, some which are in the Mineral Local plan, but
others which are not.
We have up to recently been contesting a planning application to quarry at Barnby Moor, issued in December 2018, due to its failure to submit correct information on the
application it was withdrawn on the 24th September 2019,. However, Hanson first planning application issued in February 2018 also went to consultation but that too was invalidated and that too was eventually withdrawn,
In regard to the above, we are not sure if this is a temporary move by the applicant or not.
The interest in this land at College Farm, Barnby Moor is between Hanson UK and Rotherham Sand and Gravel Company, both sites are adjacent to each other - so again, the Rotherham Sand and Gravel company could also pursue a planning application on this site,
as it has other proposed sites in the Mineral Local Plan , and in all probability when these sites have been exhausted, it will then pursue applying for planning at Barnby Moor.
As Tarmac, also commissioned a scoping report on Botany Bay, 'south of Barnby Moor,
then this also is another site that is not visible in the MLP but no doubt will be aggressively
pursued in the foreseeable future. So in 'less than one mile radius' we could be subjected to
a further three foreseeable quarries in the future, which will not only be a blight on our
landscape and community, but also the loss of the most best and valuable source of
agricultural land.
All the above sites have the worse SA scores throughout the County, the worse of these are
Barnby Moor at -15, and yet the mineral operators have been able to get a foothold in this
area, due to the Secretary of State decision, not being upheld.
The only safeguard we have to protect this area is to uphold the decision made by the
Secretary of State and insist that Tarmac does the same by getting the full potential out of
the quarry at Sturton Le Steeple, - which will prevent the onslaught on these rural villages,
if they are allowed to quarry every few miles on the A638.
In regard to Tarmac, who own the rights on Botany Bay and Sturton Le Steeple. The latter
of these sites have gained planning approval, but has never been worked and the quarry at
Girton in which they also own is presently mothballed and has recently gained approval
that it can remain like this until 2035.
We believe the planning department is responsible for this action taken by Tarmac, as it
encourages the above action of mothballing sites, rather than insisting it adheres to the
decision made by the Secretary of State, it condones their action, by allowing Tarmac to
submit further sites, when its intent is simply to gain planning consent and then mothball
them.
Although we are told that the decision made by the Secretary of State is final, it actually is
not, as it can be simply tweaked to the mineral operators advantage, allowing them the
final decision to decide to which sites are worked and to which sites are not?
In conclusion to this section, we would like the decision to be upheld by the Secretary of
State and that the Sturton Le Steeple quarry should now be developed to its full potential,
to protect and prevent further sites in the idle valley, in or out of the Mineral Local Plan
from further quarrying. If this cannot be assured then what prevents the mineral operators
abusing the Secretary of State final decision again in the future, if no action is put in place
to prevent it.
2. Justified/Sound
The decision taken by the Secretary of State to choose the quarry at Sturton Le Steeple was
a justified and sound decision, it took reasonable alternatives into account and it was based
on proportionate evidence. However as the Independent inspector decision was not acted
upon, and contrary actions were taken, then this makes the decision to mothball the
appropriate quarry at Sturton Le Steeple and submit further sites in the idle valley an
unjustified and unsound plan, and it should be refused.
Consistent with national policy
Protecting our most best and versatile soils
Due to the increases of sites in the idle valley that will be required as an alternative choice
to Sturton Le Steeple, then not only will it require choosing more sites for quarrying in the
idle valley, it will also detrimentally change our rural landscape. Equally as important,
quarrying in an area which has the most best and versatile soil, will not only rob us of the
natural beauty of the countryside, but also our most valuable agricultural soil, in which is
specific for this purpose.
In conclusion we think it is paramount that a decision made by the Secretary of State,
should stand, and not be diminished by those with alternative motives.
In regard to the above notification, we would like to comment on the above consultation.
1. Is the plan legally compliant?
We do not think this plan is legally compliant as it did not adhere to the decision made by
the Secretary of State Independent Inspector in the 2005 Adopted Mineral Local Plan
which was not complied with.
As our objection relates to quarrying in the idle valley, then this too was the objective of
the Secretary of State Independent Inspector who had stipulated in the plan, that there
should be no more proposals to quarry in the idle valley until the proposed quarry, Sturton
Le Steeple, was near to exhaustion. This was the site choice chosen by the independent
inspector.
The Sturton Le Steeple quarry has over 20 years of mineral reserves, and a possible
extension of a further 6 years. However, the mineral operator, Tarmac who owns the rights
to both Botany Bay and Sturton Le Steeple, appealed at the consultation, that the Botany
Bay site should also gain approval - however the independent inspector disagreed and
stipulated that no further sites would be needed, due to the extent of the mineral reserves in
the Sturton Le Steeple quarry.
As the Mineral Local Plan can span years before the final decision is taken, then the
decision taken by the Secretary of State should not be taken lightly, either by the mineral
operator or the planning department.
However this site at Sturton Le Steeple, after three years of gaining its planning approval,
was mothballed for 5 years on the request of Tarmac, and consequently approved by the
planning department. The NCC in the call for sites stage then allowed further sites to be
submitted from the idle valley which included Botany Bay, the site the independent
inspector had previously refused.
We are now in a unfavourable position, of having further quarrying in an area which is
now decimating the area on the A638, some which are in the Mineral Local plan, but
others which are not.
We have up to recently been contesting a planning application to quarry at Barnby Moor,
issued in December 2018, due to its failure to submit correct information on the
application it was withdrawn on the 24th September 2019,. However, Hanson first
planning application issued in February 2018 also went to consultation but that too was
invalidated and that too was eventually withdrawn,
In regard to the above, we are not sure if this is a temporary move by the applicant or not.
The interest in this land at College Farm, Barnby Moor is between Hanson UK and
Rotherham Sand and Gravel Company, both sites are adjacent to each other - so again, the
Rotherham Sand and Gravel company could also pursue a planning application on this site,
as it has other proposed sites in the Mineral Local Plan , and in all probability when these
sites have been exhausted, it will then pursue applying for planning at Barnby Moor.
As Tarmac, also commissioned a scoping report on Botany Bay, 'south of Barnby Moor,
then this also is another site that is not visible in the MLP but no doubt will be aggressively
pursued in the foreseeable future. So in 'less than one mile radius' we could be subjected to
a further three foreseeable quarries in the future, which will not only be a blight on our
landscape and community, but also the loss of the most best and valuable source of
agricultural land.
All the above sites have the worse SA scores throughout the County, the worse of these are
Barnby Moor at -15, and yet the mineral operators have been able to get a foothold in this
area, due to the Secretary of State decision, not being upheld.
The only safeguard we have to protect this area is to uphold the decision made by the
Secretary of State and insist that Tarmac does the same by getting the full potential out of
the quarry at Sturton Le Steeple, - which will prevent the onslaught on these rural villages,
if they are allowed to quarry every few miles on the A638.
In regard to Tarmac, who own the rights on Botany Bay and Sturton Le Steeple. The latter
of these sites have gained planning approval, but has never been worked and the quarry at
Girton in which they also own is presently mothballed and has recently gained approval
that it can remain like this until 2035.
We believe the planning department is responsible for this action taken by Tarmac, as it
encourages the above action of mothballing sites, rather than insisting it adheres to the
decision made by the Secretary of State, it condones their action, by allowing Tarmac to
submit further sites, when its intent is simply to gain planning consent and then mothball
them.
Although we are told that the decision made by the Secretary of State is final, it actually is
not, as it can be simply tweaked to the mineral operators advantage, allowing them the
final decision to decide to which sites are worked and to which sites are not?
In conclusion to this section, we would like the decision to be upheld by the Secretary of
State and that the Sturton Le Steeple quarry should now be developed to its full potential,
to protect and prevent further sites in the idle valley, in or out of the Mineral Local Plan
from further quarrying. If this cannot be assured then what prevents the mineral operators
abusing the Secretary of State final decision again in the future, if no action is put in place
to prevent it.
2. Justified/Sound
The decision taken by the Secretary of State to choose the quarry at Sturton Le Steeple was
a justified and sound decision, it took reasonable alternatives into account and it was based
on proportionate evidence. However as the Independent inspector decision was not acted
upon, and contrary actions were taken, then this makes the decision to mothball the
appropriate quarry at Sturton Le Steeple and submit further sites in the idle valley an
unjustified and unsound plan, and it should be refused.
Consistent with national policy
Protecting our most best and versatile soils
Due to the increases of sites in the idle valley that will be required as an alternative choice
to Sturton Le Steeple, then not only will it require choosing more sites for quarrying in the
idle valley, it will also detrimentally change our rural landscape. Equally as important,
quarrying in an area which has the most best and versatile soil, will not only rob us of the natural beauty of the countryside, but also our most valuable agricultural soil, in which is specific for this purpose.
In conclusion we think it is paramount that a decision made by the Secretary of State, should stand, and not be diminished by those with alternative motives.