SO5: Minimising impacts on communities

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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 (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.

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.

Unsound and unjustified publication minerals local plan; objections letter on policy MP2 proposal MP2p at Mill Hill Barton-in-Fabis. Objections: This representor's 2018, Issues and Options consultation comment, is to be reappraised an objection. • My (&) numerous - what are now MP2p-related - objections written in on the politically withdrawn minerals local plan, and on what is now a MP2p-related planning application, are essentially relevant
concerning this consultation process; including my letter at 2018's Draft plan.
• The planning and environmental mal-cumulative - noting DM8 5.97. - everything else that's been foisted at the adjacent, rural parish - and out towards Lockington; where's the geographical spread in that. • Is it not somewhat volte-face - when the County Council tends to policy prefer site extensions - that Shelfo rd 's currently considered too sizeable.

A description to a local planning authority (LPA) is under way
re where 'would not want to see what looks very damaging 'fracking'. The plan's (MP1) undertow throughout would be provision-linked to LPAs'
negative urbanizing vision. • It is unsound and unjustified LPA &/or ' highways'
(their): hard-surfacing too much, works degrading land, excessive demolition re buildings; so even down to MP5 recycling at Bunny,
with regard to my local environment, the publication version is: failing, environmental-degradation complicit, encroaching, in a number of matters wasteful, environmentally unsound.
• Mis-presenting representation(s) 'observed; and the County Council lack of involvement with, concerning the Clifton area committee(s).

Regarding the above, for the Examination Hearing Sessions, it is necessary I request participation.

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

Dear Committee

I wish to submit my objections to the various aspects of the above.

I am not personally likely to be affected, but feel saddened or disgusted in the NIMBY attitude of the Conservative CC and the Conservative RBC for me this is again being demonstrated by the above proposals.
The earlier example being the allowance of the Development of Housing on Prime Agricultural Green belt land adjacent to Clifton, which I appreciate is not relevant to this matter but for me together demonstrates shabby practice which I cannot support.

I consider that the Local Mineral Plan is unsound and unjustified should be withdrawn in it's current form. I cannot believe that in undertaking the analysis of the pattern of demand that consideration has been given to the regional availability of gravel just over the County boundaries of Leics and Derbys.
Likewise the implications on the Local Communities and roads concerning the distribution of the gravel from a busy hub along roads that are busy now and will be increasingly so when the Clifton Pastures Development is operational.
The transfer of gravel by conveyor up to the top of the hill from the Trent Valley and the storage/distribution plant on the skyline will impact of both local and more distant communities both acoustically and in terms of air pollution.
The allocation of the site at Mill Hill MP2p and excluding the site at Shelford from your plan is wrong according to your own Sustainability Appraisal, it's also morally wrong to take important decisions like this for political reasons.
The Shelford Site offers greater opportunities, it is less connected to the local community has a longer potential life without excluding other areas it also offers more environmentally friendly delivery options via barge or road.
Finally I understand that the County Council has failed to conform to its own Statement of Community Involvement, I can only conclude that it feels no obligation towards residents of adjacent areas which again I consider to be inconsiderate and wrong.

Sincerely

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 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.

I wish to object to the Minerals Local Plan in its current form, I believe the plan to be unsound and unjustified

In particular SO1 is unsound as the Council has failed to undertake any proper analysis of demand and markets with an unjustified emphasis on distance material is transported.

I fail to see the justification for removing the site at Shelford and replacing it with the Barton in Fabis site, the assertion that Shelford is too large makes little sense. MP2 is unsound

Further the Council does not appear to have complied with its own policy of Community Involvement

In conclusion I believe the plan should be withdrawn

1. SO 1 is unsound and unjustified
a. The County Council have not undertaken a meaningful analysis of the site & a full impact on surrounding communities and natural environment, has not been undertaken in a thorough enough method. Transportation is not the only factor you should take into consideration
b. I also do not think the council have taken into account the current/proposed geographical spread of sites
2. You have not conformed to your Statement of Community Involvement
a. There have been no attempt to engage with the village, which will be dramatically affected by the proposals – this is incredibly disappointing, frustrating and unjust
b. I understand you are responsible for providing information on proposals to those affected and this has not happened
c. Your current planning and consultation processes are so complex, bureaucratic that they exclude many individuals including myself in local communities. This is discriminatory and there is no provision for vulnerable residents including those at Larkhill who’s health will be SEVERLY AFFECTED by this proposal. Not everyone can access your information boards at the Library
d. You have stated that a large number of pro forma letters have been received. This is not correct. But you may spot similarities in responses. As I say – UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUALIFICATIONS IN PLANNING, HOURS TO RESEARCH THINGS THAT AFFECT YOU, A BUCKET LOAD OF TENACITY, THERE IS NO WAY THE COMMON MAN COULD POSSIBLY NAVIGATE THE BLOCKERS YOU PUT IN PLACE TO BEING ABLE TO OBJECT TO SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS YOU. AND YOU KEEP MAKING US DO THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Some would say this is a tactic to wear us down. This is unjust, unfair and should not happen. You need to help the local community not stop it from being able to exercise it’s rights. So there may be occasions where individuals have helped each other – THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE SENTIMENT OR PASSION WHICH SITS BEHIND THE OBJECTION. For example – does it really matter if someone doesn’t include their postcode?
3. MP2 The Sand and Gravel Provision is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED – including Barton and removing Shelford
a. In the CURRENT CLIMATE EMERGENCY DECLARED BY OUR GOVERNMENT – you have failed to allocate any sites which would use sustainable forms of transport in line with SP4 – which states you would maximize sustainable transport including barges.
b. Other sides could overcome this issue and REDUCE THE IMPACT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT – eg Cowlick is closer to markets for the product/provide a more sustainable solution.
c. Your own sustainability appraisal has told us that the Barton In Fabis site is less sustainable and MORE ENVIRONMETALLY DAMAGING than the Shelford Site. We’ve recently had a national strike to address the impact of our actions on the environment – THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO LIST AND TAKE ACTION NOW AND CHOOSE THE LEAST ENVIROMENTALLY DAMAGING SITE. We’ve only got one shot at this – please listen to everyone – think about the planet now before it’s too late.

This many not be a technically professional objection to the site – but I hope my sentiment does come through & that along with all the required technical objections you will consider this.

I FEEL THAT THE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN IN IT’S EXISTING FORM SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN AS IT IS UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED AS HIGHLIGHTED BELOW:

Improving the sustainability of minerals development - SO1 - is unsound and unjustified

• No meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for sand and gravel across market areas has been undertaken by the County Council. Therefore there is nothing to justify the geographical spread of sites or the proposed ‘spatial pattern of mineral development’.

• Allocation of sites should include the impact on local communities and the natural environment, they should be judged on their own merits and take into account all factors involved, not simply how far the minerals would be transported.


Sand and Gravel Provision - MP2 - allocation of site MP2p is unsound and unjustified and should be removed

• According to the County Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal the Mill Hill site, MP2p, adjacent to Barton in Fabis is more environmentally damaging and less sustainable than the Shelford site. Therefore the inclusion of Mill Hill is unsound and unjustified and should be removed from the minerals local plan.

• The plans inclusion of a site at Mill Hill adjacent to Barton in Fabis, site MP2p, and the subsequent removal of a previously included site at Shelford is unjustified and unsound. Therefore site MP2p at Mill Hill should be removed.

• An assertion that the site at Shelford is too large and would lead to ‘limited provision’ in other parts of the County supply is without any evidence or justification.

• The County Council has failed to allocate any sites which ‘maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport including barge’ in line with SP4.

• The removal of Shelford from the Minerals Local Plan is unsound and unjustified as Shelford would provide a more sustainable pattern of transport as deliveries to Colwick wharf would be closer to major markets.


Statement of Community Involvement - The County Council have failed to conform to it’s own Statement of Community Involvement

• Paragrapgh 3.14 - 3.15 of the Statement of Community Involvement has not been complied with by the County Council who have failed to provide information on specific proposals to local communites.

• In over 1,000 communications from local people raising issues with the draft Minerals Local Plan there have been no meaningful responses.

• Information boards placed at Clifton Library have lead to discrimination against local residents due to restricted mobility and their inability to access the information.

• There have been no attempts to consult Communities outside of the County Council’s boundary’s who would be directly affected by the proposed plans, including Clifton Village and Clifton.

THE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN IN IT’S EXISTING FORM SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN AS IT IS UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED.

I trust all communications raising points in relation to the ‘soundness’ of the current Minerals Local Plan will be taken into account.

Gotham Parish Council feel that the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan is UNSOUND AND UNJUSTIFIED.
The new MLPPV replaces a previous Mineral Local Plan which was approved by full council but which was then later withdrawn due to a change in Local council leadership in 2017.
We feel that it was no coincidence that the decision necessitating a second plan was essentially due to the initial Site being located at Shelford which just happened to be in the ward of the newly elected leader for the Council, both plans had identical Vision and Strategic Objectives, but have reached significantly different conclusions in terms of sites identified for the extraction of sand and gravel.
The new MLPPV includes a site at Barton in Fabis / Mill Hill which was previously rejected because of the huge environmental damage and low sustainability score according to the County Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal. This site has replaced a site at Shelford which has a higher sustainability score.
The new MLPPV now includes ‘geographical spread’ of sites across the County which gives the ability to ignore key strategic objectives such as S05 SO5 ‘Minimising impacts on communities’ and S06 ‘Protecting and enhancing natural assets. In addition, the ‘Site Selection Methodology and Assessment’ now infers that the Shelford site would be too large and the pattern of supply impacting the geographical spread of sites. It has also ignored that there are already gravel extractions in the near vicinity of Barton in Fabis / Mill Hill at both Redhill and East Leake.
SO1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development’ is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
- No meaningful analysis of the pattern of demand for sand and gravel across market areas has been produced to justify the proposed “spatial pattern of mineral development” or geographical spread of sites. It has also ignored current Sand and Gravel Extraction sites in close proximity to new proposed sites.
- Impact on communities and the natural environment are now being ignored in favour of only taking into consideration how far minerals are transported. They have also ignored how many miles can be conducted using more sustainable forms of transport such as barge.
MP2: Sand and Gravel Provision’ is UNSOUND and UNJUSTIFIED
- The addition of Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, a site which by NCC’s own analysis shows it to be one of the most damaging sites for sand and gravel of those considered, and the removal of Shelford, the previously favoured site by NCC’s own analysis on the same criteria is unsound and unjustified.
- The County Council has ignored the favoured forms of Sustainable Transport such as Barge when considering sites including Shelford which would make it much closer to major markets in respect of “Road Miles” by using Colwick Wharf.

Statement of Community Involvement
- Non-compliance with paras 3.14 / and 3.15 of Statement of Community Involvement and responsibility to provide information on specific proposals to local communities, they have ignored engaging with other communities in close proximity to the proposed Barton in Fabis / Mill Hill site who are in the Nottingham City catchment area.
- Classifying a large number of responses to the Draft Minerals Local Plan from residents as “pro-forma” and thus ignoring them is unacceptable.

In response to the consultation on the Council’s Mineral Plan, I consider it to be not legally compliant; unsound; and incompliant with the duty to cooperate. This is on the following bases:
Legal Compliance
The site MP2p near Barton in Fabis is identified in the Sustainability appraisal as being the most negative impact in the operational period yet has been included whilst the Shelford site has been omitted despite being assessed as having a less negative impact. The Plan is thus at odds with the Sustainability appraisal.
The Council have failed to adequately consider the relevance of the fact that the Barton site is located within the Green Belt. No mention or consideration is given to the cumulative impact on the green belt in this area from other known developments such as the outline planning permission granted for 3000 new homes at Fairham.
Contrary to SP4, the Plan does not allocate any sites, such as Shelford, that makes use of more sustainable forms of transport including barge.
Soundness
The Plan includes the Barton site and omits the previously included Shelford site despite the site appraisal scores indicating that the Barton site will have a more negative impact. What is the point of completing an appraisal if the results are to be ignored?
Prioritising the supposed need for a spatial pattern of mineral development over the actual strengths and weaknesses of the individual sites is unsound. These are in essence political decisions rather than material planning considerations.
There is no sound justification for the removal of the previously included site at Shelford. The Sustainability Appraisal reads “The size of the estimated reserves of this site would contribute very positively to meeting national and local demand for sand and gravel.” In short, the size of the site is a strength, not a weakness and its removal, apparently on this basis, is thus unsound.
Incompliant with Duty to Cooperate
The Council’s approach to this round of consultation is at odds with its very purpose. The stated preferred method of response is via the Council’s website that reads “we would encourage you to do so online via our website at www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/minerals , using our interactive online representation system.” This interactive system does not work. Whether deliberate or not, this makes it too hard for people to submit consultations.
The Council erred in dismissing over 1,000 responses to the Draft Minerals Plan as “a large number of pro forma letters.” This is contrary to the duty to cooperate by failing to properly weight the volume of responses.
The Council has failed to directly engage with communities in Nottingham City, Clifton, Clifton Village and Lark Hill Retirement Village all of whom face direct impact from the Plan. This is particularly relevant given the cumulative impact of other known development in the area.
For these reasons I submit that the Plan is incompliant, unsound and not in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement. It should be removed in its current form. The MP2p site should be removed.

Re: Nottinghamshire New Minerals Local Plan Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site ( MP2p)

I am writing to you on the above and on behalf of many of my constituents in Nottingham South who have contacted me during this latest stage of public consultation on the New Local Plan. You will be aware that I have submitted objections in previous stages of consultation and I have to admit to a degree of surprise that this site is still being considered. Extraction at this site would have a massive and detrimental ecological and environmental impact - on Local Wildlife Sites and SSSls nearby as well as on nearby heritage sites such as (Grade 1) Clifton Hall) and its (Grade 2) Registered Parks and Gardens. There is also the serious impact any 12-15 year extraction would have on the large communities within the Nottingham City boundaries in Clifton - including Lark Hill Retirement Village - who will be directly impacted.

I know from the documents publicly available that a request has been made to the applicant to provide further information to try to overcome these issues. I do, however, feel that the impact above would be so significant as to make the Mill Hill site unjustified and unsound.

I am also not convinced over the conclusion of the Site Selection Methodology and Assessment report in relation to the Shelford site. What specific evidence has been presented that this site is larger than currently required and would lead to provision being "limited in other parts of the County? What meaningful analysis of the pattern of future demand has been carried out to factor in demand from major infrastructure projects including highways developments, housing growth and HS2?

Consideration should in any case be given to phasing the development at this site beyond the Plan period. The Shelford site would have far less environmental impact in both the operational phase and in the long term as shown in your own Sustainability Appraisal and full and proper consideration should be given to revisiting Shelford as a site again. As I understand it, deliveries of minerals to a processing plant at Colwick via barge to the wharf there would be a more sustainable pattern of transport and would be closer to major markets. As such, the inclusion of Mill Hill and the removal of the Shelford site in the new Plan is unsound and unjustified.

Many of my constituents have also raised serious concerns that the County Council has not complied with paragraph 3.14-3.15 of the Statement of Community Involvement. In particular, that there been no real attempt to engage with communities within the city boundaries - especially Clifton - and that there has been no meaningful reply to the 1000+ responses from local people to the Draft Plan. This is particularly worrying given these are people who will be directly impacted. This aspect of the consultation cannot be considered 'sound'.

As it stands, this Plan and the allocation of the Mill Hill site is unjustified and unsound. The former should be withdrawn and the latter should be removed.

Yours sincerely

See attached

See attached