SO6: Protecting and enhancing natural assets

Object

Representation ID: 161

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Minerals Products Association

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SO6: Protecting and enhancing natural assets should include agriculture as an appropriate restoration outcome. This is required to make the Plan effective and positive.

Support

Representation ID: 172

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Mick George

MGL has identified a conflict between SO6 & SO8. Good planning is about the reconciling of competing objectives for land, and a good plan will highlight this and propose appropriate policies to manage the conflict. In Nottinghamshire, where a significant proportion of mineral bearing land is underlain by high quality soils, and where there is a shortage of fill material for restoration, there is a clear potential for conflict between the competing objectives of maximising net biodiversity gain, and one in which the long-term potential of best and most versatile agricultural soils is safeguarded, but this is not evident from the strategic objectives. In cases where there is a conflict, MGL proposes that the plan and the strategic objectives should identify this. Accordingly, MGL suggests a rewording of SO6,
2. The reason for the proposed change is that the text is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 299

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SO5, SO6 and SO7
We are supportive of the strategic objectives dealing with minimising impacts on local communities (SO5), protecting and enhancing natural assets (SO6) and protecting and enhancing historic assets (SO7). However, the Minerals Local Plan is unsound because these objectives are not applied in the development and application of the site appraisal and allocation methodology. The goal of developing an appropriate and sustainable spatial distribution of sites (SO1) overrides the goals set out in SOs 5, 6 and 7. Moreover the goal of promoting sustainable modes of transport (SO1) is not applied as a consideration in the site allocation process
A sustainable spatial distribution of sites is not one which is simply determined by proximity to market and transport costs. Indeed, it can be argued that given that potential developers are probably better informed about the geography of the market and the economics of working a site than NCC, then it can be assumed that all the sites put forward by extraction companies are equally economically viable. In developing a Minerals Local Plan the goal of developing a sustainable spatial distribution is therefore dependent upon ensuring that of the sites allocated, those selected have the least impact on wider sustainability goals.

Object

Representation ID: 307

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SO6: Protecting and enhancing natural assets
This strategic objective is unsound because it makes no reference to ensuring no net loss of biodiversity, and because in its criteria for supporting minerals development it does not specify avoiding the highest quality habitats for biodiversity – only landscapes of the highest quality for character. It therefore does not meet the criterion of effectiveness as set out in Para 35 of the NPPF.