MP2p: Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis

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”.

See attached documents

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.

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.

1. The rationale underlying the sustainability assessment as it relates to sand and gravel is
inadequate and therefore the Plan is unsound on grounds of effectivness. The identification of
geographical spread and sustainable transport as factors shaping the allocation of sites is poorly
explained and poorly applied. Certainly, identifying a spatially sustainable distribution of sites would
include the analysis of proximity of resource to market, but it would also entail analysis of the
environmental and social dimensions of sustainability to ensure that a balance between the three
pillars of sustainability are considered adequately. The Plan uses geographical location as an
overriding factor and ignores the results of the county’s own sustainability assessment for the sites.
Not only does it allocate one of the most damaging sites to the plan (Mill Hill Barton in Fabis) on the
grounds of size and location, but it also fails to apply the other characteristic identified in the options
section, namely, sustainable transport. No consideration is given to the use of barge to transport sand
and gravel and the advantages this would have in serving the market. The proposal at Shelford, for
example, was found to be less damaging and had the advantage of barge transport. The sustainability
appraisal is supposed to look at the relative merits and disadvantages of sites – since it does not
properly do this, the Plan is unsound.
2. The strategic objectives set for the plan are undermined by the allocation of the site at Mill Hill,
Barton in Fabis, and so the Plan is unsound on grounds of justification. Either the policies set
out in the first part of the Plan mean something or they are merely window dressing. I conclude the
latter, because they are simply not used to guide the decision making. The allocation of the site at Mill
Hill is contrary to almost all of the policy objectives. The ecological impact is significant, and the socalled
biodiversity-led restoration plan provided by the promoters of this site fails to restore or
compensate for what has been lost. The claims by the promoter that the ecological impact is minor is
completely unfounded, as is evidenced by the considerably body of information provided by other stakeholders in relation to the recent planning application for this site. The Plan also needs to use the
recognised mitigation hierarchy in developing a sustainably sound strategy. In addition, the impact on
landscape and historic character is significant – and these cannot be restored.
The Plan is unsound because sites have not been considered on their own merits.

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.

See attachments

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.

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.

We strongly object to unsound and unjustified allocation MP2p, proposed inclusion of site Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, with this letter.

Impact on communities, for example dust and noise
Impact on the natural environment, visual, nature designations, green belt.

We strongly object to unsound and unjustified allocation MP2p, proposed inclusion of site Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, with this letter.

Impact on communities, for example dust and noise
Impact on the natural environment, visual, nature designations, green belt.

We strongly object to unsound and unjustified allocation MP2p, proposed inclusion of site Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, with this letter.

Impact on communities, for example dust and noise
Impact on the natural environment, visual, nature designations, green belt.

We strongly object to unsound and unjustified allocation MP2p, proposed inclusion of site Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, with this letter.

Impact on communities, for example dust and noise
Impact on the natural environment, visual, nature designations, green belt.

We strongly object to unsound and unjustified allocation MP2p, proposed inclusion of site Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, with this letter.

Impact on communities, for example dust and noise
Impact on the natural environment, visual, nature designations, green belt.

We strongly object to unsound and unjustified allocation MP2p, proposed inclusion of site Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, with this letter.

Impact on communities, for example dust and noise
Impact on the natural environment, visual, nature designations, green belt.

We strongly object to unsound and unjustified allocation MP2p, proposed inclusion of site Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis, with this letter.

Impact on communities, for example dust and noise
Impact on the natural environment, visual, nature designations, green belt.

Whilst the site proposed to be allocated by this policy (Policy MP2p – ‘Mill Hill near Barton In
Fabis’) is not located within the local authority area of Broxtowe Borough Council, it is situated
immediately adjacent to the Borough’s boundary.
The Borough Council is of the view that the policy and supporting site development brief should
be slightly amended to enhance the level of protection for the various natural and recreational
assets along this part of the Borough’s boundary.
A number of environmental and recreational assets within the Borough Council’s boundary may
potentially be adversely affected by this allocation. These include not only the Attenborough
Gravel Pits SSSI, which is referred to within the site development brief, but also the
Attenborough Nature Reserve (open space) and Trent Valley Green Infrastructure (GI) Corridor.
The Borough Council notes that the ‘policy’ does not refer to the ‘Trent Valley Green
Infrastructure (GI) Corridor’, which runs along the River Trent. There is also no reference to this
GI Corridor within the site development brief. This important GI Corridor is not only of
environmental and biodiversity value, but is also an important recreational route within the
Borough. The development of a minerals extraction facility close to this location has the potential
to impact upon the environmental assets of the local area, as well as the potential of the area as
a recreational resource to the local community.

The Borough Council recommends that mitigation measures should be proposed within the
policy and site development brief to protect the various nearby environmental and recreational
assets within the Borough’s boundary, including the Attenborough Gravel Pits SSSI,
Attenborough Nature Reserve (open space) and the Trent Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor,
in order to both protect wildlife and biodiversity and also to minimise any disturbance to the
recreational use of these areas. Examples of such mitigation measures could include additional
buffers between the mineral extraction site and the banks of the River Trent.
The Borough Council also recommends that the Trent Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor is
referenced within the site development brief.

Parts 1 (a) and 2 (a) of Policy MP12 refer to ‘protected areas’, although the policy does not
currently define which types of ‘protection’ this term refers to. The Borough Council is of the view
that it would be helpful for the policy and supporting text to clearly define the extent of these
‘areas’. In particular, it would be useful to clarify whether these areas include land designated as
‘Green Belt’ or land protected by other designations (for example, Local Wildlife Sites, SSSIs,
Local Nature Reserves etc.).
The Borough Council recommends that the term ‘protected areas’, as referred to within parts
1(a) and 2(a) of Policy MP12, should be clearly defined within the policy and supporting text. The
Borough Council considers that the inclusion of mapping illustrating the extent of these
‘protected areas’ would also be very useful

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