MP6: Brick Clay Provision

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2


Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 94

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because of the inherent contradiction between the Plan-led approach whilst simultaneously making specific provision for development on non-allocated sites within Policy MP6. If the plan-making process has been robust and based on good data, then there should be no need for development on non-allocated sites. A robust plan review progress at fixed intervals may identify the need to bring new sites forward for further allocations in a proper manner, where the need has changed, in which case they can be compared to other potential sites in a rigorous way. It is not a rigorous process for a single operator’s proposal to be brought forward at a particular point in time, and therefore not be subject to a proper comparative test against others prospective sites, including an SA.

By undermining the plan-led approach, it is possible that this policy could inadvertently breach the requirements of the NPPF and so may not be legally compliant.

Full text:

See attachments


Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 244

Received: 09/10/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

We note that the site area previously identified in the draft has now been removed.

Full text:

Publication Version of the Nottinghamshire Mineral Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Publication version of the
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan.

The Environment Agency supports the publication of this Local Plan.

The Environment Agency is satisfied that the Local Plan is legally complaint.

The Environment Agency is satisfied that the Local Plan is sound.

We welcome the comments made in the responses from the council to the draft mineral plan about the changes between minimised and mitigated. We accept the reason that minimised has been kept within the wording.

SP3 Climate Change
We welcome this policy inclusion within the Mineral Plan and the requirements for minimising the risks upon climate change. We had previously asked that all mineral development should reduce, or as a minimum, cause no increases in their impact on the causes of climate change in our response to the draft mineral plan and would reiterate this for inclusion.

We also asked that water resources and water quality are added into part c) of the policy as restoration could offer future opportunities to so support the adaptation to climate change.

SP5 – The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
We previously highlighted the change of date for the Water Framework Directive (WFD), to 2027. We note that this wording doesn’t appear to be mentioned now within the document.

Water Resources Information
We have previously highlighted the changes to water abstraction regulations (new authorisations) that now requires abstractions, such as dewatering, that were previously exempt from permitting, to be brought into the permitting process, and now require an abstraction licence.

We reiterate this point and highlight that a number of sites previously mentioned will have difficulties obtaining new abstraction licences for water due to these changes, which could impact upon the viability of the sites. We wish to reiterate this non planning matter to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for their consideration. Recent mineral applicants within these closed catchemnts, where planning permission has been granted, have subsequently come to the Environment Agency to discuss the requirements for a permit application. The Environment Agency permitting team have started the process of advising on the environmental permit process highlighting than an abstraction licence would be unlikely to be granted, however the EA have advised that some options, including neutral water balance options such as water reinjection or trading the rights to abstract groundwater should be considered.

Policy MP6: Brick Clay Provision
We note that the site area previously identified in the draft has now been removed.

Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
We previously made comments about the layout and the wording of this particular policy. For information we reiterated that consideration was needed to whether the policy should be split up into separate ones, one for water resources, and the other for flooding. We also mentioned that as water quality is mentioned within the policy, then water quality should be included in the title of this policy.

In section 5.31 we previously mentioned that we would query that mineral extraction can increase flood risk elsewhere. We would reiterate that no development, no matter how temporary should not increase flood risk elsewhere as per the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policy DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality
We welcome the inclusion of this policy.

Policy DM4: Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity
We welcome point 3 of this policy stating that biodiversity will be enhanced. Biodiversity net gain is a key matter to consider for any future mineral developments.

Policy DM12: Restoration, aftercare and after-use
We did ask that detailed information for flood risk and possible reductions in flood risk are included where full restoration plans are not provided.

Site Allocations
We have previously highlighted our comments on the proposed sites within the Mineral Plan. As per our comments relating to water resources and the new authorisations we would reiterate that a number of these sites will find it unlikely that any application for an abstraction licence will be approved. This risk needs to be understood by the Mineral Planning Authority and quarry operators and the permit requirements for each site need to be understood at the same time as, or before planning is applied for. We would reiterate that at the very least parallel tracking of both the planning and permitting processes should be undertaken, or even the permitting process be undertaken beforehand. This requirement should be added into the site briefs.

Yours sincerely