SO1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development

Re: Minerals Local Plan Consultation

I write to register my objection to the Minerals Local Plan. Having seen the current proposals I believe that the plan is unsound and is unjustified in its current form.
I also think that the Strategic Objective SO1 is unsound and unjustified. The impact on the local communities and the natural environment has not been properly accounted for or assessed.
The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill is also unsound and unjustified due to several environmental considerations and should be removed. Furthermore, the County Council has failed to conform to its requirements under its Statement Of Community Involvement.
The transport links to the MP2p site have not been fairly assessed compared to the Shelford site which has the advantage of utilising sustainable transport in the form of barge useage from Colwick Wharf. This option would significantly reduce energy useage and road useage - reducing the impact of extraction in that particular locality.
No meaningful evidence has been presented to support the assertion that the Shelford site is ‘too large’ which is a very poor argument for discounting that site as the ability to provide a good supply of minerals would surely make adoption of a site with the associated infrastructure more viable.
The Mill Hill site near Barton In Fabis is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Councils own Sustainability Appraisal.
With regard to community involvement, the Council has failed to engage with my local community in any meaningful way. Having been a resident living on the river bank for fifteen years I am aware of local flooding issues and am very concerned about the effect this would have on the environment of the proposed site. You will already be aware of these issues as residents have pointed this out previously in response to the Draft Minerals Local Plan - including providing photographs of local flooding, why has this not been taken into account? These factors need to be considered including the impact on communities and on the natural environment.

Good morning
I wish to raise further objections regarding the above plan and specifically in relation to the proposed plan for Mill Hill/ Barton in Fabis.
My objections are based on a number of factors and are summarised as follows:
You have failed to undertake any meaningful analysis of demand for sand and gravel to support the proposed geographical plan.
You seem to be ignoring the impact of proposed sites on local communities and environments.
The decision to exclude Shelford and include Mill Hill appears completely unjustified, although I am personally concerned that Shelford is the constituency of Kay Cutts.
It appears that the Mill Ste is less sustainable than Shelford and more environmentally damaging, this is according to the Council’s own sustainability report. Additionally Shelford is closer to major markets and provides opportunity for more sustainable transport links.
I feel very annoyed that you have characterised previous responses as ‘a large number of pro forma letters’, not consulted with Clifton and Clifton Village residents (who would be affected), and discriminated against Lark Hill residents who find it difficult to gain access to the relevant information.

On this basis I believe that the Minerals local plan is unsound and unjustified . The SO1 is unsound and unjustified, the allocation of site MP2p is also unsound and unjustified and that they should be withdrawn. I believe the council has also failed to conform to its own statement of community involvement.

Dear Sir,

The above plan was discussed at a recent meeting and I have been asked to submit a comment on behalf of Weston Parish Council.

The Council are particularly pleased to see that the plan focuses on promoting sustainable transport and where possible the use of the existing transport network. It is also noted that the plan aims for extraction would be centered on areas where the end product is required thus reducing the level of transportation.

I believe that:-
1. The Local Plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form.
2. The Strategjc Objective SO1 (Improving the sustainability of minerals development) is unsound and unjustified.
a. The County Council has failed to undertake any meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justify the proposed “spatial pattern of mineral development” or geographical spread of sites.
b. Sites considered for allocation should be judged on their own merits and take account of all factors including their impact on communities and the natural environment, not just how far minerals are transported.
3. The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Baron in Fabis (under MP2 Sand and Gravel provision) is also unsound and unjustified and should be removed.
a. The inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford in the new Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified.
b. The County Council has failed to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 “maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge”.
c. Deliveries of minerals to Colwick wharf from Shelford would be closer to major markets and provide a more sustainable form of transport.
d. No evidence has been presented to justify the assertion that Shelford site is too large and would lead to “provision (being) limited in other parts of the County supply”.
e. The Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis site is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal.
4. The County Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community involvement.
a. The County Council has failed to comply with para3.14 / 3.15 of Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities.
b. It has made no attempt to engage directly with communities in Nottingham City, Clifton and Clifton Village which are directly impacted by the proposals but are outside the County Council area.
c. It has made no meaningful response to strategic issues raised in over 1000 responses from local people to Draft Minerals Local Plan. It incorrectly characterised them as “a large number of pro-forma letters”.

I am writing to object to the Minerals local plan because I believe it is unsound and unjustified and it should be withdrawn in its current form.
The strategic objectives SO1 is unsound and unjustified. The county council has failed to undertake any meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justify the proposed spatial pattern of mineral development or geographical spread of sites.
In allocating sites they should be judged on their own merits and take into account all factors including their impact on the community and the natural environment, not just how far minerals are transported.
To suggest that the environmental impact of creating a new quarry is justified here when analysis has not been completed on the demand, is shocking and extremely detrimental to the natural environment at risk. The location is situated in a protected nature area, the loss of which would be devastating to both animals and the community that use the area on a daily basis. This is not an unused piece of waist land this is a protected natural area used by its local community regularly.
The propose a new quarry site on one of the few natural areas on the edge of the Nottingham city boundary that holds one of the largest housing estates, of which the community uses the area under threat to walk, cycle, fish, ride, bird watch, and play with no full investigation into the impact to the local community is just shocking and unacceptable. More so when an already viable and in use quarry site is removed inexplicably from the shortlist of sites, Shelford.

The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis ( under MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision) Is also unsound and unjustified and should be removed. The inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill me Barton in Fabis and the removal of an alternative sire at Shelford in the new Mineral Local Plan is unsound and unjustified. The local County Council has failed to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 , “Maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge” Deliveries of minerals to Colwick wharf from Shelford would be closer to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of transport. There has been no evidence presented to justify the assertion that Shelford site is too large and would lead to “ provision being limited in other parts of the county” supply and to justify creating a new quarry at Barton in Fabis whilst a working quarry is still viable is unsound and disasterous for the natural enviroment at Mill Hill.
The County Councils own Sustainability Appraisal stated that creating a quarry at Mill Hill is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than continuing with the already present Shelford site. The County Council has failed to comply with para 3.14 / 3.15 of Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities. There has been no attempt to engage directly with the communities held within the Nottingham City Council boundary including Clifton and Clifton Village areas who are directly impacted by the proposals but are actually covered by the City Council not the County Council.
There has been No meaningful response to strategic issues and concerns raised in over 1000 responses from local people to the Draft Mineral Local Plan, stating these were simply pro-forma letters. The letters may have contained similar items but they also contained personal comments from individual members of the community that would be directly affected by this plan and to undermine the publics reply’s who will be directly affected by this is an absolute disgrace. I spoke to a large number of people who wrote letters to object and the amount of people completely unaware of the Councils plan to destroy their natural area near where they live was shocking, this only proves that the council failed to fulfilled their requirement to communicate with the local people about such plans.

Dear Sirs,

I believe that the Minerals Local plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form, for reasons stated:~

S01
a) Allocating sites should be judged on their own merits and take account of all factors including their impact on communities and the natural environment, not just how far the minerals are transported.
b) Notts C.C. has failed to undertake any meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for sand and gravel across the market area to justify the proposed spatial pattern of minerals development or geographical spread of sites.

MP2
a) The inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis and removal of alternative site at Shelford in the new minerals plan is unsound and unjustified
b) Notts CC has failed to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge (GO GREEN)
c) Deliveries of minerals to Colwick Wharf from Shelford would be closer to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of transport (GO GREEN)
d) No evidence has been presented to justify the assertion that Sheflord site is too large, and would lead to provision being limited to other parts of the County supply.
c) The Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site is less sustainable than the Shelford site, according to the Notts CC own sustainability appraisal (GO GREEN).

Statement of Community Involvement
a) Notts CC has faield to comply with para 3.14/3.15 of Statement of Community involvement and responsibility to provide information as specific proposals to local communities
b)No attempt to engage directly with communities in Nottingham City, Clifton, Clifton Villages, directly impacted by the proposals, but outside the County Council area.
c)Discrimination against residents, including Lark Hill Retirement Village, living close to the proposed quarry,. but unable to access information boards at Clifton Library due to restricted mobility.
d) No meaningul response to strategic issues raised in over 1,000 responses from local people to Draft Minerals Local Plan. Responses incorrectly characterised as "a large number of pro-forma letters".
e) "This all smells of political meddling and Brexit ideology".

The Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form.

I believe that issues contained within the Minerals Local Plan are unsound and unjustified. The Minerals Plan needs to be withdrawn in its current form.
With regard to SO1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development, I feel that as it is it is unsound and unjustified. There does not appear to have been any meaningful analysis of the pattern for sand and gravel across the wider market areas or the geographical spread of sites.
Site allocation should be based on their own merits and additionally take in an account of all factors including their impact on communities and the natural environment. They should not just depend on how far minerals are transported.

MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision is unsound and unjustified!
In including the MP2p Mill Hill site near Barton in Fabis, I don’t feel that any consideration has been given to size of population in the surrounding areas and the impact that the extraction of sand and gravel will have on the noise and air pollution. A sizeable percentage of the population at Lark Hill Retirement Village and adjacent areas already suffer from serious lung conditions, myself included, having had COPD diagnosed recently. The increase in particles released into the surrounding air can only exacerbate the impact on the local community’s health. Alongside this is the increased noise pollution from the workings and increased heavy traffic on a daily basis.
This will also affect the surrounding natural environment. There are several SSSI’s in close proximity. These and other important environmental factors do not seem to have been taken into consideration when selecting sites. According to the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal, the Mill Hill site is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the previously included Shelford site.
The inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford is unsound and unjustified.
The County Council has not allocated sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport. SP4 states “maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge.”
Surely the Shelford site is perfect for fulfilling this statement, being close to Colwick Wharf, where deliveries of minerals would be closer to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of transport.
No evidence has been presented to justify the claim that the Shelford site is too large and would lead to “provision (being) limited in other parts of the County” supply.
Taking in to consideration that the Mill Hill site is closer to a larger area of population than Shelford, has consequently has more environmentally damaging factors than Shelford and additionally does not fulfil the sustainable mode of transportation that Shelford could, it is a complete mystery as to why the obviously more suitable site of Shelford has been withdrawn other than it was a purely political decision.
Statement of Community Involvement
The County Council has failed to comply with paragraph 3.14/3.15 of Statement of Community involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities.
There was no attempt to directly engage with the communities most directly affected, being in close proximity to the Mill Hill site, within the Nottingham City boundaries but outside the County Council area.
Very few of us were made aware of the information boards at Clifton Library. I feel that there was even discrimination against residents, as those most affected by the Mill Hill quarry proposals at Lark Hill Retirement Village were not able to easily access the information boards due to restricted mobility.
In conclusion there was also no meaningful response to over 1000 letters of objection from local people to the Draft Minerals Local Plan. Even though many of these were characterised as being on a pro forma letter this was incorrect as within the responses all included their individual reasons for objecting to an obviously unsound and unjustified decision.

Please register my objection to the Minerals Local Plan. Having seen the current proposals I believe the plan is not sound and is unjustified in its current form.

I also believe that the Strategic Objective SO1 is unsound and unjustified. The impact on nearby local communities and the particularly important natural environment has not been properly accounted for and assessed.

The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill is also unsound and unjustified due to a multitude of environmental considerations and should be removed. Furthermore, the County Council has failed to conform to its requirements under its Statement Of Community Involvement.

The transport links to the MP2p site have not been fairly assessed in comparison to the Shelford site which has the advantage of utilising sustainable transport in the form of barge useage from Colwick Wharf. This option would reduce energy useage and road useage significantly reducing the impact of extraction in that locality.

No meaningful evidence has been presented to support the assertion that the Shelford site is ‘too large’ which in itself is a very poor argument for discounting that site as the ability to provide a good supply of minerals would surely make adoption of a site with the associated infrastructure more viable.

The Mill Hill site near Barton In Fabis is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Councils own Sustainability Appraisal.

With regard to community involvement, the Council has failed to engage with my community in a meaningful way. I sent a response to the Draft Minerals Local Plan including details of local flooding issues and concerns about the effect on the environment around the proposed site including photos of local flooding around my home and specific information over flood levels we experience as residents living on the edge of the river bank. I also offered to engage further on this issue. I received no acknowledgement or response to that communication which was constructed in a carefully considered way with direct local knowledge as a resident living right on the edge of this dynamic section of river adjacent to the site that is well known to frequently overspill the banks during the winter months. I repeat my offer to engage further on this issue and I will be interested to observe whether this submission will justify a response.

Dear Sir / Madam

Minerals Local Plan Consultation (Please see final Paragraph marked *Discrimination)

I am writing to confirm that I wish to STRONGLY OBJECT to the above application on the grounds that:

1. The Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUN D and UNJUSTIFIED and should be withdrawn in its current form.
2. Strategic Objective S01 is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
3. The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Barton n Fabis (under MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision is also UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED and should be removed.
4. The County Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.

S01: Improving the sustainability of minerals development is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFED.

The County Council has failed to undertake any meaningful analysis of demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justified the proposed " spatial pattern of mineral development" or geographical spread of sites.

When allocating sites, they should be judged on their own merits and take account of all factors including their impact on local (extremely close) communities and the natural environment, not just how far minerals are transported.

MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED

Inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford in the new Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED.

The County Council has failed to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 " Maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge".

Deliveries of minerals to Colwick Wharf from Shelford would be close to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of transport.

There has been no evidence presented which justifies the assertion that Shelford site is too large and would lead to "provision (being) limit ed in other parts of the County" supply.

The Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the council' s own Sustainability Appraisal.

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The County Council has failed to comply with paragraphs 3.14/3. .15 of Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities

NO attempt to engage directly with communities in Nottingham City, Clifton or Clifton Village directly impacted by the proposals but outside the County Council area.

Discrimination against local residents, including residents at Lark Hill Retirement Village living close to the proposed quarry but unable to access information boards at Clifton Library due to restricted or no mobility.

No Meaningful response to strategic issues raised in over One Thousand responses from local people to Draft minerals Local Plan. Responses incorrectly characterised as "a large number of proforma letters"'.

* DISCRIMINATION:

This indicates absolute failure to recognise that there is an aging community in these areas with little or indeed no access (or capability) to produce individual letters. It does not mean that they opposition is any less passionate or meaningful!

Your s faithfully

Dear Policy Team,

POLICY MP2 SAND AND GRAVEL PROVISION and INCLUSION OF SITE MP2p at MILL HILL near BARTON IN FABIS

I would wish to register my Strongest Objection to the above plan for Sand and Gravel extraction .

I believe that The Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form.
SO1 -"The County Council has failed to explain the demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justify the spread of sites.
These sites should take into account the impact on communities, the natural environment and not how far minerals are transported.

MP2 -The Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site is less sustainable and much more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal - so why select the Barton site rather than the Shelford site!

Not a scrap of evidence has been presented or communicated to justify that the Shelford site is too large and would lead to 'provision (being) limited in other parts of the county' supply

The removal of the Shelford site in the new minerals plan is unsound and unjustified!

No attempt to communicate or engage with the Clifton and Clifton Village people who will be dramatically impacted by these proposals but outside the County Council area. The County Council has utterly failed to comply with para 3.14/ 3.15 of the Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities.

Minerals delivered to Colwick Wharf from Shelford would be logistically nearer to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of efficient and less disruptive transport - a major consideration I!

I have previously written with my objections, along with, I am told over 1000 other objections, from local people to the draft Minerals Local Plan after which responses were incorrectly stated as 'a large number of pro-forma letters' - really!!

Yours Faithfully

We find the proposed plan to be wholly compliant with all legal requirements and we are of the opinion that it is sound and appropriate to need and sustainability and welcome its emphasis on locating extraction nearest to the point of use and utlisation by extension, where appropriate, of existing sites of extraction.
We do not support however any subsequent new extraction site immediately north of Cromwell due to the significant adverse impact this would have on Carlton On Trent from associated HGV traffic.

I believe that (for the reasons outlined below);
The Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED and should be withdrawn in its current form.
I also believe that (for the reasons outlined below);
The Strategic Objective SO1 is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED.
Further, I believe that (for the reasons outlined below);
The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Barton-in-Fabis (under the MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision) is also UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED and should be removed.
Finally, I believe that (for the reasons outlined below);
The County Council has FAILED to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.
I will now cover each of these statements in detail;
'SO1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development' is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
The council seems to have taken no consideration of the actual pattern of demand for sand and gravel in it's "spatial pattern of mineral development" i.e. the geographical spread of sites. It seems to have just put pins in a map to decide where to source sand and gravel. The concept of a 'geographical spread of sites' makes no sense and, instead sites should be chosen on their merits. It would be like choosing Councillors base on their geographical spread around the county, rather than the skills they can offer.
It seems the justification for the geographical spread suggested by the Council hinges, falsely, on reducing the distance sand and gravel has to travel once extracted. Although travel distance can be a factor in reducing environmental impact, so does the impact on communities and destruction of the natural environment have to be taken in to consideration. Plus, the concern of transportation by lorry could be completely negated by transporting by barge - as put forward by the Council's plan itself. However the only site with barge access for the removal of sand and gravel, Shelford, seems to have been removed for, as yet, unknown reasons?
For these reasons, the Strategic Objective SO1 is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
As mentioned above, for unknown and unsound reasons, the Shelford site has been removed from the Mineral Local Plan in this latest version. I find this particularly odd as, in the County Council's own words (in SP4), "maximum use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge" should be used. Shelford is the only site that had barge access and therefore, should have been top of the list of potential sites.
It appears that the justification for the removal of Shelford from the list of potential sites seems to be that (and I can't believe I am writing this) it is too large!! How can a yet to be developed site be too large? It would be like saying that a birthday cake is too large to eat! You just take a slice. And if you need more, you take another slice. This obvious solution should be the approach with Shelford. Start with a small excavation and, if more sand and gravel is required, increase the size of the excavation. Not only is the removal of Shelford because it is too large UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED, it is actually nonsensical! Who is making these decisions at the County Council? How can an, as yet undeveloped, proposed site be too large? I would like someone at the Council to explain this concept to me please.
Also, from the Council's own figures in the report, the site that has been included, Mill Hill near Barton-in-Fabis, would be the most environmentally damaging during the operational phase and the 3rd worst during the long term. How can a site that has this much potential environmental damage be chosen over a site (Shelford) that has the more environmentally friendly barge access available? Again, I would like to know who is making these flawed decisions and on what basis they are making them?
For these reasons, the allocation of site MP2p is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
Statement of Community Involvement
The County Council has also failed to comply with para 3.14 / 3.15 of it's Statement of Community Involvement. No attempt has been made to engage with the communities in Nottingham City, Clifton and Clifton Village. These areas directly border the proposed site at Mill Hill near Barton-in-Fabis and any potential excavation works will greatly impact these areas in terms of noise, dust and increased traffic.
The scant information that has been available has been difficult to access. Lark Hill Retirement Village, which directly neighbours the proposed site at Mill Hill have not been approached directly. Many of it's residents have accessibility issues and, from a moral and ethical perspective, it would seem only a matter of courtesy to inform them personally of the proposal, with a presentation at their location, for example. The fact that a potentially huge excavation site, creating large amounts of dust that, due to the prevailing wind direction, will be blowing directly in to their area is something they would need to know about. Especially as Lark Hill Retirement Village is more likely to have residents with compromised lung function, causing potential breathing problems for those residents.
I also understand that the Council received over 1,000 responses (objections) to the Draft Minerals Local Plan (mine was one of those) and yet the Council has seemingly chosen to ignore those due to their number. The Council cannot ignore the voices of the people just because their are many voices. To the contrary, it should take note of these voices and follow the will of the people. After all, the Council is an elected body, democracy should be at it's very core, not ignoring the comments made by so many.
For these reasons, The County Council has FAILED to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.
I know you will have a lot of response to this consultation but as I have taken the, quite considerable, time to research and write this response, I would appreciate it if someone from the Council would be courteous enough to answer the questions I have raised above. It is, after all, your responsibility to inform and educate your residents.

Dear Sir / Madam

Minerals Local Plan Consultation (Please see final Paragraph marked *Discrimination)

I am writing to confirm that I wish to STRONGLY OBJECT to the above application on the grounds that:

1. The Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUN D and UNJUSTIFIED and should be withdrawn in its current form.
2. Strategic Objective S01 is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
3. The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Barton n Fabis (under MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision is also UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED and should be removed.
4. The County Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.

S01: Improving t he sustainability of minerals development is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFED.

The County Council has failed to undertake any meaningful analysis of demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justified the proposed " spatial pattern of mineral development" or
geographical spread of sites·.

When allocating sites, they should be judged on their own merits and take account of all factors including their' impact on local (extremely close) communities and the natural environment. not just how far mineral s are transported.

M P2: Sand and Gravel Provisionis UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED

Inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford in the new Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED.

The County Council has failed to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 " Maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge".

Deliveries of minerals to Colwick Wharf from Shelford would be close to major markets and provide a m o re sustainable pat tern of transport.

There has been no evidence presented which justifies the assertion that Shelford site is too large and would lead to "provision (being) limit ed in other parts of the County" supply.

The Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the council' s own Sustainability Appraisal.

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The County Council has failed to comply with paragraph s 3.14/3.15 of Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities

NO attempt to engage directly with communities in Nottingham City, Clifton or Clifton Village directly impacted by the proposals but outside the County Council area.

Discrimination against local residents, including residents at Lark Hill Retirement Village living close to the proposed quarry but unable to access information boards at Clifton Library due to restricted or no mobility.

No Meaningful response to strategic issues raised in over One Thousand responses from local people to Draft minerals Local Plan. Responses incorrectly characterised as "a large number of proforma letters"'.

* DISCRIMINATION:

This indicates absolute failure to recognise that there is an aging community in these areas with little or indeed no access (or capability) to produce individual letters. It does not mean that they opposition is any less passionate or meaningful!

Yours faithfully

I believe that the Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form.

S01: Sites should be judged on their own merits and consider the impact on local communities plus the natural environment including the impact on Attenborough Nature reserve

MP2: Sand and gravel provision is unjustified. The Mill Hill site near Barton in Fabis is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Councils own Sustainability Appraisal.

I believe that the minerals local plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form.

Strategic objective SO1 is unsound and unjustified. The allocation of site MP2q at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (under MP2 sand and gravel provision) is also unsound and unjustified and should be removed. The County Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.
Site allocation should be judged on their own merit such as the impact on the local community plus the natural environment such as attenborough nature reserve.

Dear Policy Team, POLICY MP2 SAND AND GRAVEL PROVISION and INCLUSION OF SITE MP2p at MILL HILL near BARTON IN FABIS I would wish to register my Strongest Objection to the above plan for Sand and Gravel extraction . I believe that The Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form. SO1 -"The County Council has failed to explain the demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justify the spread of sites. These sites should take into account the impact on communities, the natural environment and not how far minerals are transported. MP2 -The Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site is less sustainable and much more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal - so why select the Barton site rather than the Shelford site! Not a scrap of evidence has been presented or communicated to justify that the Shelford site is too large and would lead to 'provision (being) limited in other parts of the county' supply The removal of the Shelford site in the new minerals plan is unsound and unjustified! No attempt to communicate or engage with the Clifton and Clifton Village people who will be dramatically impacted by these proposals but outside the County Council area. The County Council has utterly failed to comply with para 3.14/ 3.15 of the Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities. Minerals delivered to Colwick Wharf from Shelford would be logistically nearer to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of efficient and less disruptive transport - a major consideration I! I have previously written with my objections, along with, I am told over 1000 other objections, from local people to the draft Minerals Local Plan after which responses were incorrectly stated as 'a large number of pro-forma letters' - really!! Yours Faithfully

I am writing to express my issues with The Minerals Local Plan because it is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED and should be withdrawn it its current form.

Reasons I believe for this are as follows:
a) Strategic Objective SOl is Unsound and UNJUSTIFIED:
"S01: Improving the sustainability of minerals development, is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED

The County Council has completely failed to undertake any fruitful and meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for both sand and gravel across the market areas to actually justify the proposed II spatial pattern of mineral development" or geographical spread of sites.

In the actual allocation of sites they should be judged completely on their own merits and take into account of all the factors including their impact on communities and the natural environment not just how far minerals are transported.

b) The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (under the MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision) is also UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED

"MP2: SAND AND Gravel Provision" is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED

The inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford in the new Minerals Local Plan are unsound and justified.

Deliveries of minerals to Colwick wharf from Shelford would be closer to major markets and provide more sustainable pattern (both economically and environmentally) of transport for these goods.

The County Council has failed to identify and allocate any sites which utilises more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 "maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge"

The Mill Hill site near Barton in Fabis is both less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal.

There has been NO evidence issued or presented to justify that the assertion of the Shelford site is too large and would lead to "provision (being) limited in other parts of the County's supply.

c) The Count Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.

Statement of Community Involvement

The County Council has failed in its obligation to comply with para 3.14/ 3.15 of Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to all local communities.

Discrimination against residents, including those at the nearby Lark Hill Retirement Village, living close to the proposed quarry but unable to access some information boards located at Clifton Library due to restricted mobility they have.

There has been absolutely no attempt to engage directly with communities in the Nottingham City, Clifton, Clifton Village, Lark Hill Retirement Village, Toton, Chilwell, Beeston directly impacted by the proposals but outside the County Council area.

There is also no meaningful response to strategic issues raised in over 1,000 responses from local people to the Draft Mineral Local Plan.

The issues are the same for everyone affected by the Draft Mineral Local Plan which is why there are common statements by all those whom object.

I am writing to express my issues with The Minerals Local Plan because it is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED and should be withdrawn it its current form.

Reasons I believe for this are as follows:

a) Strategic Objective SOl is Unsound and UNJUSTIFIED:

"S01: Improving the sustainability of minerals development, is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED

The County Council has completely failed to undertake any fruitful and meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for both sand and gravel across the market areas to actually justify the proposed II spatial pattern of mineral development" or geographical spread of sites.

In the actual allocation of sites they should be judged completely on their own merits and take into account of all the factors including their impact on communities and the natural environment not just how far minerals are transported.

b) The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (under the MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision) is also UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED

"MP2: SAND AND Gravel Provision" is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED

The inclusion of site MP2p Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis and the removal of an alternative site at Shelford in the new Minerals Local Plan are unsound and justified.

Deliveries of minerals to Colwick wharf from Shelford would be closer to major markets and provide more sustainable pattern (both economically and environmentally) of transport for these goods.

The County Council has failed to identify and allocate any sites which utilises more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 "maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge"

The Mill Hill site near Barton in Fabis is both less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site according to the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal.

There has been NO evidence issued or presented to justify that the assertion of the Shelford site is too large and would lead to "provision (being) limited in other parts of the County's supply.


c) The Count Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.

Statement of Community Involvement

The County Council has failed in its obligation to comply with para 3.14/ 3.15 of Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to all local communities.

Discrimination against residents, including those at the nearby Lark Hill Retirement Village, living close to the proposed quarry but unable to access some information boards located at Clifton Library due to restricted mobility they have.

There has been absolutely no attempt to engage directly with communities in the Nottingham City, Clifton, Clifton Village, Lark Hill Retirement Village, Toton, Chilwell, Beeston directly impacted by the proposals but outside the County Council area.

There is also no meaningful response to strategic issues raised in over 1,000 responses from local people to the Draft Mineral Local Plan.

The issues are the same for everyone affected by the Draft Mineral Local Plan which is why there are common statements by all those whom object.

Dear Sir/Madam

From the information I have been provided at a village meeting I believe that the minerals local plan is unsound and unjustified and sh ould be withdrawn in its current form.
In particular strategic objective SO1, which is to improve the sustainability of minerals development is unsound and unjustified. No meaningful analysis of the demand for sand and gravel has been undertaken and no consideration has been given to the spread of sites.
The allocation of sites should be judged on their own merits and take account of all factors including the impact on communities and the natural environment not just how far minerals are transported.
In the statement of community involvement, the council has failed to comply with paragraph3.14 /
3.15 in relation to providing information on specific proposals to local communities. .

It would also appear that responses to the consultation on the draft minerals local plan have been· ·
broadly overlooked.
It was, in my view, wholly inappropriate to characterise responses as 'a large number of pro-forma letters'.
I for one, and I know many other people have commented quite specifically on the inappropriate suggestions contained in the draft plan. Not only does there seem to have been little or no acknowledgement of the concerns expressed by consultees nbut I understand that there are many others who will be adversely affected by the impact of the plan who have not been sufficiently consulted as well.
For example, communities in Nottingham city, Clifton and Clifton village.

For the residents of Lark Hill and particularly Lark Hill the consultation has been very poor.

Little effort has been made to acknowledge the special needs of disabled elderly people who, for example, have been unable to access information boards at Clifton library.
The negative environmental impact of the site at Barton cannot be overstated. The site is less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than sites which were included in the previous plan, such as the one at Shelford. This information has come from the council's own sustainability appraisal.

The area adjoining the Trent Valley Way provides communities with significant recreational facilities. The woods offer a tranquil area enjoyed by many. With the new housing development south of Clifton there will be a lot more people who can potentially enjoy the area.
Arguably, the environmental impact of sand and gravel workings adjacent to the woods will have an even greater negative impact on the local community in future as more people would be affected.
The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (under MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision} is also unsound and unjustified and should be removed.
The inclusion of site MP2p and the removal from the last plan of Shelford is also unsound and unjustified.
In the current plan the county council has failed to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport. This is inconsistent with to SP4 'to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge.'
Deliveries of minerals to Colwick wharf from Shelford would be closer to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of transport.
Apparently, the plan asserts that a site at Shelford is too large and would lead to provision being limited in other parts of the county. No evidence has been provided to substantiate this assertion.
I trust that the various comments you will presumably receive concerning this consultation will be noted. I also hope the views of those communities whose lives will be blighted by the development of a sand and gravel quarry in Barton/ Mill Hill will be taken seriously and not trivialised.

wish to respond to your consultation process concerning the Minerals Local Plan.
It is my view that the Minerals Local Plan is both unsound and unjustified in the form
that it is currently written and should therefore be withdrawn.
On two specific points the Strategic Objective SO1 is nsound and unjustified. Equally
the allocation of site MP2 at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis is unsound and unjustified.
Finally Nottinghamshire County has failed to conform to its own statement of
Community Involvement
I will expand on these points as follows :
‘SO1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development’ is UNSOUND and
UNJUSTIFIED
There has been a failure by the Council to carry out any meaningful analysis of the
areas where there is a demand for sand and gravel or examined where the markets
for the output is likely to come from. In short the Council has failed in its attempts to
justify the spatial pattern of mineral development or the rationale for the geographical
spread of the sites proposed in the Plan.
The allocation of the sites must be justified on the individual merits and to do this must
take account of the impact on local communities and the natural environment. The
Plan in it current form only takes account of how far the gravel and sand is to be
transported.
‘MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision’ is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
The Council failed to add any sites that use more sustainable means of transport for
removing the quarried sand and gravel. SP4 talks about the use of barges where
appropriate for this purpose. No such sites have been allocated.
The previous Plan, now withdrawn, included a significant site at Shelford that would
have enabled the Colwick wharf to be used for exporting gravel from the Shelford site
by barge. This would then be closer to the anticipated markets for the material.
No rationale has been outlined to explain the exclusion of the Shelford site from the
list of proposed sites, particularly that it was deemed “too large” and as such would
limit output in other parts of the County.
The inclusion of the Mill Hill site MP2p as an alternative to Shelford is a site that is
less sustainable and has more environmentally damaging effects based upon the
County Council’s Sustainability Appraisal.
Statement of Community Involvement
There has been a failure to comply with the Council’s Statement of Community
Involvement, in particular paras 3.14 and 3.15 where there is a requirement to
provide information on the specific proposals to the local communities affected.
No evidence has been presented to show how there was any engagement with the
local communities within Nottingham City such as Clifton and Clifton Village which
will be impacted on by the proposals.
The residents of Lark Hill have been subjected to discrimination on grounds of
mobility in being able to access the display boards at Clifton Library.
No significant analysis has been carried out on the hundreds of responses from local
residents on the draft Mineral Plan, other than to dismiss them as being “pro forma
responses. I will be writing separately to the Council’s Chief Executive to establish
who took the decision to effectively dismiss these responses and to establish wheter
a disciplinary investigation be carried out into those who came to this decision.
Yours faithfully

SO1 The Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified and should be withdrawn in its current form because careful consideration has not been given to the impact on local communities and the nature corridors for all wildlife that exist and is why I visit my daughter in the area to take advantage of all that it offers.

MP2 - It has been stated that the Shelford site would be more sustainable and less environmentally damaging at a time when we are encouraging people to enjoy what the outside world has to offer .

Lack of Statement of Community involvement has been raised. Surely every effort should be made to make sure that everyone affected young and old should be kept fully informed at every stage and time given to explain exactly the impact it will have on their lives.

This is a special area and why people choose to live there for their well being and be close to the wildlife that at the moment they live close to. We are constantly being told to encourage wildlife and build the right habitats for them.

To whom it may concern,
I believe that the Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED and should be withdrawn in its current form.

Strategic Objective SO1 is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED

There is not enough analysis on what sand and gravel provisions are really required in this area. Additionally, I hear that some of the provisions were earmarked for HS2, a project that is still uncertain of whether it will go ahead.
If there isn’t the demand for sand and gravel in this area, then it will need to be transported around the country, adding more traffic to local roads and more importantly polluting the environment even more so through transportation. We are told as citizens to challenge the carving up of protected land. With our environmental commitment, how can this project be justified, when we should be looking at more eco friendly ways to build houses or perhaps we should be renovating the thousands of houses in the country that sit empty instead of using precious resources to build more?
The natural environment is special and should be protected by being a SSSI so I am appalled that this location is even being considered, the environment and local community needs to green spaces have clearly not been considered as part of the strategic objective.

The allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis (under MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision) is also UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED and should be removed

I reiterate my points above here – this project has been proved unsound for many years, why does pushing the matter mean that the decision has to change? Is this
legally and morally right to keep pushing for something that is not sustainable or viable, when the answer has been no before how can it be yes now?

The natural environment in this area has already been squeezed because of the widening of the A453 and the chopping down of 2000 trees, therefore, wildlife such as deer and muntjac now populate this area, many species of owls and neighbouring birds and wildlife from Attenborough Nature Reserve will be threatened too. This will be environmentally damaging at a time when climate
crisis is a daily headline in our newspapers.

The County Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement.

Other than a few of us who keep abreast of the proposal, many local residents and of the city of Nottingham itself have no idea that there could be a new quarry so
close to the city, when will people be consulted properly and clearly not just through a convoluted method via the website?

If the plan is deemed so legal and fair, then please be transparent and advertise the proposal to demonstrate community involvement and care. I am a local resident and very concerned about the possible implications of
flooding, I have mentioned this is previous communications and no-one has tried to quash my concerns.

I would be grateful if you could consider my comments.

See attached

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 .

We believe that the Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED as it presently stands, and should be withdrawn and rewritten.
Strategic Objective 1 is unsound and unjustified, because the Mineral Planning Authority has failed to present any relevant evidence base to justify the proposed geographical spread of sites. The Sustainability Assessment findings have been largely overridden by the ‘spatial pattern of mineral development’, despite the fact that this pattern is not justified by any credible evidence that it should be used to overrule the findings of the Sustainability Assessment.
Policy MP2 in particular the inclusion of the Barton in Fabis Mill Hill site (MP2p) is unsound and unjustified
The inclusion of the Barton in Fabis (Mill Hill) site cannot be justified. The previous draft plan (which provided for significantly more sand and gravel extraction) rejected the site because it was one of the most environmentally damaging of those considered. This version provides for a lot less gravel, but purely on the grounds of ‘geographical spread, the site is now considered as suitable. No credible explanation for this has been produced. No evidence has been produced to justify the statement that Shelford would produce too much gravel for the area, nor why the suitability of Shelford for barge transport has been overlooked.
The MPA has produced no evidence to justify its interpretation of the correct geographical spread (supply and demand for each sub area), and whilst we accept that there would be no sense in having all or most extraction confined to a limited geographic location, there is absolutely no justification for using this as the determining factor to override the Sustainability Assessment.
What the MPA was told by respondents at the Issues and Options stage appears under Policy MP2. We have underlined some key points
Responses were split between those who thought it was important to maintain a geographical spread of minerals. Reasoning given focuses on the need to minimise transportations distances, minimising environmental impacts, providing a steady and adequate supply of resources and ensuring that sites are located in relation to markets and demand (both within and outside the County).
• Other respondents thought that a geographical spread is just one factor that needs to be evaluated due to impacts on local residents, the availability of capacity on the highway network and the availability of recycled minerals in the main urban areas.
• Generally, respondents felt that prioritising specific geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, instead, each site should be judged on its own merits.
• Other suggestions included prioritising sites closest to the market, prioritising those with good transport links/access to barging or those that have the least impact on the local area.
• There was general agreement that the use of barges along the River Trent would provide a sustainable form of transport minimising minerals related HGV’s. However there was an equal amount of concern regarding the actual financial viability of setting up the infrastructure needed for river barging particularly over a shorter distances.
The absence of any credible evidence to support the geographical spread of sites makes Policy MP2 (in particular MP2p) unjustified and unsound.

We believe that the Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED as it presently stands, and should be withdrawn and rewritten.
Strategic Objective 1 is unsound and unjustified, because the Mineral Planning Authority has failed to present any relevant evidence base to justify the proposed geographical spread of sites. The Sustainability Assessment findings have been largely overridden by the ‘spatial pattern of mineral development’, despite the fact that this pattern is not justified by any credible evidence that it should be used to overrule the findings of the Sustainability Assessment.
Policy MP2 in particular the inclusion of the Barton in Fabis Mill Hill site (MP2p) is unsound and unjustified
The inclusion of the Barton in Fabis (Mill Hill) site cannot be justified. The previous draft plan (which provided for significantly more sand and gravel extraction) rejected the site because it was one of the most environmentally damaging of those considered. This version provides for a lot less gravel, but purely on the grounds of ‘geographical spread, the site is now considered as suitable. No credible explanation for this has been produced. No evidence has been produced to justify the statement that Shelford would produce too much gravel for the area, nor why the suitability of Shelford for barge transport has been overlooked.
The MPA has produced no evidence to justify its interpretation of the correct geographical spread (supply and demand for each sub area), and whilst we accept that there would be no sense in having all or most extraction confined to a limited geographic location, there is absolutely no justification for using this as the determining factor to override the Sustainability Assessment.
What the MPA was told by respondents at the Issues and Options stage appears under Policy MP2. We have underlined some key points
Responses were split between those who thought it was important to maintain a geographical spread of minerals. Reasoning given focuses on the need to minimise transportations distances, minimising environmental impacts, providing a steady and adequate supply of resources and ensuring that sites are located in relation to markets and demand (both within and outside the County).
• Other respondents thought that a geographical spread is just one factor that needs to be evaluated due to impacts on local residents, the availability of capacity on the highway network and the availability of recycled minerals in the main urban areas.
• Generally, respondents felt that prioritising specific geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, instead, each site should be judged on its own merits.
• Other suggestions included prioritising sites closest to the market, prioritising those with good transport links/access to barging or those that have the least impact on the local area.
• There was general agreement that the use of barges along the River Trent would provide a sustainable form of transport minimising minerals related HGV’s. However there was an equal amount of concern regarding the actual financial viability of setting up the infrastructure needed for river barging particularly over a shorter distances.
The absence of any credible evidence to support the geographical spread of sites makes Policy MP2 (in particular MP2p) unjustified and unsound.

Strategic Objective 1 is unsound and unjustified, because the Mineral Planning Authority has failed to present any relevant evidence base to justify the proposed geographical spread of sites. The Sustainability Assessment findings have been largely overridden by the ‘spatial pattern of mineral development’, despite the fact that this pattern is not justified by any credible evidence that it should be used to overrule the findings of the Sustainability Assessment.
Policy MP2 in particular the inclusion of the Barton in Fabis Mill Hill site (MP2p) is unsound and unjustified
The inclusion of the Barton in Fabis (Mill Hill) site cannot be justified. The previous draft plan (which provided for significantly more sand and gravel extraction) rejected the site because it was one of the most environmentally damaging of those considered. This version provides for a lot less gravel, but purely on the grounds of ‘geographical spread, the site is now considered as suitable. No credible explanation for this has been produced. No evidence has been produced to justify the statement that Shelford would produce too much gravel for the area, nor why the suitability of Shelford for barge transport has been overlooked.
The MPA has produced no evidence to justify its interpretation of the correct geographical spread (supply and demand for each sub area), and whilst we accept that there would be no sense in having all or most extraction confined to a limited geographic location, there is absolutely no justification for using this as the determining factor to override the Sustainability Assessment.
What the MPA was told by respondents at the Issues and Options stage appears under Policy MP2. We have underlined some key points
Responses were split between those who thought it was important to maintain a geographical spread of minerals. Reasoning given focuses on the need to minimise transportations distances, minimising environmental impacts, providing a steady and adequate supply of resources and ensuring that sites are located in relation to markets and demand (both within and outside the County).
• Other respondents thought that a geographical spread is just one factor that needs to be evaluated due to impacts on local residents, the availability of capacity on the highway network and the availability of recycled minerals in the main urban areas.
• Generally, respondents felt that prioritising specific geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, instead, each site should be judged on its own merits.
• Other suggestions included prioritising sites closest to the market, prioritising those with good transport links/access to barging or those that have the least impact on the local area.
• There was general agreement that the use of barges along the River Trent would provide a sustainable form of transport minimising minerals related HGV’s. However there was an equal amount of concern regarding the actual financial viability of setting up the infrastructure needed for river barging particularly over a shorter distances.
The absence of any credible evidence to support the geographical spread of sites makes Policy MP2 (in particular MP2p) unjustified and unsound.

I write to you in regard to the Minerals Local Plan Consultation - Barton / Mill Hill Quarry

I am resident in the village of Barton in Fabis (full address below)

Having reviewed the information provided I ask that the Minerals Local Plan be withdrawn in its current form as the plan is unsound and unjustified.

SO1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development is unsound and unjustified, in particular because:

The County Council's proposal does not reflect a proper analysis of the pattern of demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justify the proposed geographical location of sites, nor the spatial pattern of mineral development.

The impact on the natural environment hasn't been taken into account when evaluating and considering sites. Especially considering the current importance of protecting species and habitats which are declining at an alarming rate. I urge the County Council to really take stock and take a lead in protecting the natural environment. In years to come it will benefit us all. People all over the world are now protesting about the way in which government's are ignoring the very real threat to our planet and the urgency with which actions need to be taken both big and small. The Council needs to urgently consider its role with regard to this and pay greater attention in decision making to this vital factor.

There is also the impact on people who live in the area of potential sites and the detrimental impact on health and quality of life. Due weighting and consideration needs to be given to both the impact on the natural environment and communities.

The site MP2p Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis has been included in the plan and the alternative site at Shelford removed. Why is this? This is also unsound and unjustified. There is a suggestion that the Shelford site is too large and would lead to limitations in other parts of the County supply but no evidence has been provided for this. Transportation from Shelford via Colwick wharf would be more sustainable and closer to major markets and therefore the CC is failing to allocate sites which use more sustainable transportation in line with the SP4 which states "maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge". In fact, the County Council seems to have failed to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport. Again, why is this?

The Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site has already been proven by the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal to be less sustainable and more environmentally damaging than the Shelford site. Why then is it included? Remember your responsibilities to the planet and the people you serve!

And on that note how is it that the County Council has failed to comply with paragraphs 3.14 / 3.15 of its own Statement of Community Involvement and failed to provide information on specific proposals to communities? How is it that there have been no attempts to engage with communities in Nottingham City, Clifton and Clifton Village who would all be directly impacted by the proposals? Just because they are outside the County Council area? That does not seem responsible at all. It is incumbent on the County Council to engage with people about this including with those who are less mobile for example at Lark Hill Rise Retirement Village who will live close to the proposed quarry.

Finally, it is really sad that the County Council does not want to listen to what its residents have to say. Over 1,000 responses were sent from local people to the Draft Minerals Local Plan which have been inaccurately described as 'pro-forma letters'. Just because people are saying the same thing, or because people are trying to speak with one voice in order that you understand doesn't mean that their communication is invalid. Please be more responsible and make fair decisions. I appeal to your wiser selves to do the right thing and rise above self-interested parties as it is the Council's role to do. Importantly listen to what local people are saying and what we can see is happening.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you to object to the Minerals Local Plan in its current form which is both unsound and unjustified. In particular Strategic Objective SO1 and the allocation of site MP2p at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis under MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision are unsound and unjustified.

The County Council has failed to follow its own and government rules/guidelines and failed to adhere to a sound process in coming up with the current Plan, namely:

1. Not taking account of or undertaking a meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for sand and gravel across market areas and the spatial pattern of mineral development or geographical spread of sites
2. Not taking account of all factors in the allocation of sites and in particular the impact on the natural environment (a very hot topic at the moment for our dying planet) or the impact on local communities
3. Not complying with paragraph 3.14 / 3.15 of the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement and failing to provide specific proposals to local communities
4. Not attempting to engage directly with communities in Nottingham City, Clifton and Clifton Village directly impacted by the proposals
5. Discriminating against residents with restricted mobility and in particular those living at Lark Hill Rise Retirement Village who will be affected
6. Not responding appropriately or respectfully to the communities you serve and the strategic issues raised by over 1,000 local people on the Draft Minerals Local Plan.
7. Including site MP2p Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis and the removal of the alternative site at Shelford in the Plan. The Mill Hill site is less suitable and more environmentally damaging than Shelford according to the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal.
8. Failing to allocate any sites which utilise more sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 which states "maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge." Deliveries of minerals to Colwick Wharf from Shelford would be closer to major markets and provide a more sustainable pattern of transport
9. Failing to provide any evidence to support the assertion that the Shelford Site is unsuitable because it is too large and therefore leading to limited provision in other parts of the County supply.

I highlight a number of areas in my response and would like to have confidence the Council is acting with integrity, common sense and using thorough analysis in its decision making. The above shows this not to be true at the moment and a revision to the Plan essential. Please act responsibly.

Ref: Minerals Local Plan Consultation off Green Street/Barton in Fabis


I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT very strongly to the above Minerals Local Plan and it should be withdrawn in its current form.

There has been an obvious lack of communication with communities that will be affected by the quarry. There is also a distinct discrimination against residents who live close to the proposed quarry and who are disabled and are unable to access information pertaining to the proposal. We have not been sent any information or been approached by anyone seeking our opinion as to what the affects may be to us as a community, which will be incalculable.

My fear is that other areas may be given preferential treatment due to certain inhabitants of those areas having an influence and in fact those areas would suit the requirements of the council much better.

S01: Improving the sustainability of minerals development is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED.

I have seen no evidence of any undertaking to have a meaningful analysis of demand for sand and gravel across market areas to justify this proposal at Mill Hill. The distance gravel has to travel is not the only consideration when proposing these projects. The environment around Barton will be adversely affected to the extent it may not recover for decades. The impact on our community will be unfathomable, given the visitors we have to the village, the residents, the disruption to the roads to name a few. All too often village life is being eroded constantly by councils proposing projects of this nature without the proper consultation. It is happening all over the country and it has to stop before we lose our countryside completely.

MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision is also UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED.

The Mill Hill site near Barton is the least suitable for the Council’s purposes. Shelford is stated in the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal as being the site that will sustain the least damage. Other sites are closer to major markets and transport would be more sustainable, including barges. The Council has failed to allocate any other sites to use sustainable transport in line with SP4. Shelford suits these Council requirements much better than Barton and I object to it being removed from the plans. Deliveries from Shelford by barge would be quicker, more sustainable, reduce traffic on the roads and it is closer to the markets. This site makes much more sense that Barton which is further away, unable to use barges meaning the only form of transport is by road, once again clogging up the road system. Logic should be used in these circumstances and I urge the Council to once again review their policies and methods of choosing these sites.

I hope the council takes note of all the objections raised above and come to the conclusion that the Barton site should once again be excluded and Shelford included in all future Mineral local plans.

Thank you for your consideration.