Reference: Sand and gravel provision site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

I am writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.

The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.

The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.

Little villages like mine are in decline because of large commercial companies purchasing and destroying the land surrounding them for sheer profit with no consideration to those people who live in these small rural tight knit communities.

The peace and tranquillity that we currently have as a rural village will be non-existent if Barton is included in the Draft Minerals Plan. Not only will the village be exposed to continuous noise, but there is also the amount of dust hat will make its way into the village due to the close proximity of the site. What about the damage impact to properties and vehicles that the dust will create, not to mention on people's health?

Development of the Barton in Fabis site will have a devastating effect on the local wildlife and environment that we have. The damage it will cause will not be localised to the Barton in Fabis site but will extend to Attenborough, the SSSI at Holme Pit and other sites of nature conservation in the local area. It has been recognized that the wildlife we have on our side of the river is different from that of Attenborough. Destroying this land and river banks will have an impact on the wildlife that calls it their home, where will all this wildlife move to? The land and wildlife that will be destroyed will be lost forever and future restoration of this land can never put it back to its original state. The area of development is also rich in history and archaeology and again damage to this land will be beyond repair, a full impact assessment of this has not been undertaken.

The development will have a negative effect on house pricing and the availability to sell our properities will be reduced massively, as who wants to live next door to a sand and gravel pit? Just because it's an open GREEN space does not mean it should be taken away and destroyed.

The County Council has previously stated that the current 'landbank' for sand and gravel exceeds government targets. Building projects claimed to justify this application are either not due to start for several years or are better supplied by existing or potential quarries nearer to those sites.

The County Councils own assessment of the sustainability and environmental impacts of this site previously resulted in its rejection and exclusion from the previous draft Minerals Local Plan. I would therefore like to request that this site is also rejected upon the same grounds.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Reference: Sand and gravel provision site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

I am writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.

The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.

The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.

Little villages like mine are in decline because of large commercial companies purchasing and destroying the land surrounding them for sheer profit with no consideration to those people who live in these small rural tight knit communities.

The peace and tranquillity that we currently have as a rural village will be non-existent if Barton is included in the Draft Minerals Plan. Not only will the village be exposed to continuous noise, but there is also the amount of dust hat will make its way into the village due to the close proximity of the site. What about the damage impact to properties and vehicles that the dust will create, not to mention on people's health?

Development of the Barton in Fabis site will have a devastating effect on the local wildlife and environment that we have. The damage it will cause will not be localised to the Barton in Fabis site but will extend to Attenborough, the SSSI at Holme Pit and other sites of nature conservation in the local area. It has been recognized that the wildlife we have on our side of the river is different from that of Attenborough. Destroying this land and river banks will have an impact on the wildlife that calls it their home, where will all this wildlife move to? The land and wildlife that will be destroyed will be lost forever and future restoration of this land can never put it back to its original state. The area of development is also rich in history and archaeology and again damage to this land will be beyond repair, a full impact assessment of this has not been undertaken.

The development will have a negative effect on house pricing and the availability to sell our properities will be reduced massively, as who wants to live next door to a sand and gravel pit? Just because it's an open GREEN space does not mean it should be taken away and destroyed.

The County Council has previously stated that the current 'landbank' for sand and gravel exceeds government targets. Building projects claimed to justify this application are either not due to start for several years or are better supplied by existing or potential quarries nearer to those sites.

The County Councils own assessment of the sustainability and environmental impacts of this site previously resulted in its rejection and exclusion from the previous draft Minerals Local Plan. I would therefore like to request that this site is also rejected upon the same grounds.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
I walk my dogs all the green belt is being built on.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

I object to MP2 sand and gravel position- An inclusion of site MP2's Mill Hill in Barton in Fabis

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

OBJECTION to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.
My objection is based on multiple issues that I feel have failed to be addressed or are misrepresented within this latest consultation exercise.

* The County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
* My property is amongst the closest in the village to the proposed quarrying site and hence the noise, dust and visual disruption is of particular concern. In addition, there are already difficulties obtaining house insurance due to being in an established flood risk area. This proposal to permit extensive quarrying within ---m of my property is going to impact significantly in a negative manner to future insurance renewal requests. In turn this will also have a significant detrimental effect on my property value.
* The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of "maintaining a geographical spread" and therefore over riding the adverse impact on sustainability. However, the Council has stated that "there is no published data related to geographical spread".
* There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
* The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport. My understanding is that such sites exist and have been identified in previous iterations of this MLP exercise, but these sites have not been recommended in this version of the MLP for reasons that remain unclear or poorly argued.
* The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) -Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWSs (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
* Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site, which should reasonably be considered by those in authority within this MLP consultation exercise.
* The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any "wholly exceptional reasons" required by the NPPF.
* The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
* There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
* The County Council has an important role and responsibility for the physical and psychological well-being of its communities in partnership with the health and social care organisations that exist to respond to these demands when problems arise. Failure to act responsibly and objectively by truly recognising and acknowledging the benefits of local communities that provide a crucial urban-rural relationship will lead to significant detriment to local communities and wider society in years to come. This is a responsibility for planners and should not be shirked or dismissed by offering superficial arguments and weak evidence to support any preferred recommendations.

(Distance to property redacted to ensure residence is not identifiable)

Preface
This Council made submissions at the previous stage, "Issues and Options," in this process of producing the final Plan. We find that some issues we addressed at that stage have been included in the Draft Plan in a way we agree with, and some not. This Submission will refer to such points of agreement or disagreement again as they arise.

None of the sites proposed in this Draft is sufficiently close to Burton Joyce for this Council to have any direct comment on the suitability of them so we address only the general principles. However, identification of sites should not be done in isolation from the expected effects of anticipated infrastructure, commercial and housing developments in the areas concerned. The issues raised in the section concerning sand and gravel, since that mineral resource is the one relevant to the whole of this part of the Trent Vale, and we wish to see such principles applied to each site to be considered. Questions from number 12 onward are not addressed in this submission.

Where we refer to the NPPF, we refer to the draft version, on the assumption that, so far as it is relevant to the point we are considering, the final version will reflect the current draft.

Q.1 the draft vision and strategic objectives
The listed policy points on p.13 are generally acceptable, with the significant exception of the 8th point. Nearness of mineral quarrying sites to end-use sites is of value to the commercial producers since transport costs are a significant element, but the Planning process must take account of those costs to the resident population and to local authorities which are not entered into commercial accounts. There is an inherent conflict within the NPPF between the need for a reliable supply of minerals and the need to take account of flood risks, particularly in light of anticipated climate change, predictions for which are more serious now than they were even in the initial stages of the drafting of this Plan. We also point out that closeness of an extraction site to the market is not the only measure of reducing transport costs, since the better-developed transport network on the Western side of the County may still make a longer journey a faster and cheaper one than adding vehicles to an already inadequate and congested road system. New building areas are most likely to be in logical places for population growth, which will already be places of relatively high density population. Such places will therefore suffer the worst damage from air pollution, noise, traffic congestion and dangers, loss of environment and amenity, and additional flood risk. More remote extraction sites result superficially in some extra cost only because the workings themselves do not take into account the very real cost to the residents and authorities. We happily accept the emphasis laid on biodiversity. However we strongly reject any suggestion that the destruction of farmland to be replaced by even more areas of stagnant open water is anything but harmful to biodiversity in the Trent Vale region.

Q2 sustainable development
We accept the principles in this section of the draft, and would lay particular emphasis on paragraph 3(a) in SP1. In the Trent Vale region there will be very many cases where the costs of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit; not necessarily from the development itself, in the form of new buildings and infrastructure, but in terms highly relevant to this Draft Minerals local Plan, the cost to communities of extraction works. We also point out that one aspect of a low-carbon economy, referred to in paragraph 3.6 of the Justification to this section, should imply a low-concrete economy, as set out more fully in answer to Question 5.

Q3 Strategic Policy for Minerals Provision
We agree with the principles set out in SP2. In particular we approve of the priority being given to extension of existing sites over the development of new sites, and wish to emphasise the second paragraph in SP2, the need for avoidance of the damage of development of new sites.



Q4 Bio-diversity-led Restoration
While the general principles as set out in SP3 appear benevolent, they may be, and have previously been, used to present a false picture of the effects of minerals extraction as some sort of "gain." Specifically, it is wrong to suggest that there is any gain in the destruction of a diverse farming landscape of mixed pasture and arable land, with trees and hedges, turning it into an open area of stagnant water. The National Character Area description, NCA48, concerning the Trent and Belvoir Vales (NE429) makes it clear that "wetland" is already more than adequately provided in this part of Nottinghamshire. "Wildlife Corridors" referred to in the draft Strategic policy do not require a continuous ribbon of static holes full of water, but stopping and nesting sites that migratory wildfowl can fly between. Such places are, if anything, already over-supplied in this area by past gravel workings. If turned into high-quality nature reserves, such as at Attenborough, this is the work of decades and at great expense by charities and local councils. If left to minimum-cost "restoration," as suggested in 13.4, this creates a large wasted space of lifeless lagoons, as at Hoveringham. Such bodies of water may, if close to residential areas, present health risks to those with breathing problems, or, near road routes, create dangerous foggy conditions from time to time.

Q5 Climate Change
There are two important ways that climate change should affect the Minerals Plan, and both are referred to in Policy SP4. Paragraph 1(a) refers to the desirability of moving to a low carbon economy, but one aspect of such a move not mentioned is the desirability of using less concrete (and consequently less aggregate.) Creation of concrete not only uses large amounts of fossil fuel, but the process of creating cement specifically consists of breaking down the chemical composition of limestone by driving off large volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Modern construction methods tend to use less concrete than was formerly used. As referred to in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c), the second point on climate change is that it is producing greater extremes of weather, including longer periods of very high rainfall. This means areas at risk of flooding are in future at risk of more frequent and more severe potential flooding. Exacerbation of such risk, especially when close to existing human settlement, by extraction of gravel from river banks, is therefore to be all the more strenuously avoided.

Q6 Sustainable Transport
We would emphasise the point SO5 in the Objectives list in this section, "minimising impact on communities." This is not necessarily best achieved in all cases by barging or by having extraction sites close to end markets. Heavy lorries on single-carriageway roads necessarily cause extra congestion, danger, pollution and dust. Longer journeys by clearer roads - or better still by rail - may have less damaging impact. To cite an example no longer under consideration but studied locally in the now-discontinued previous Draft Minerals Local Plan, barging from a proposed new-built site in Shelford would have caused great problems to residents in Burton Joyce, a few metres from that site, from the noise and air pollution, from both its construction and operation, and added to the already unacceptable flood risk, while cutting out only about four miles of road travel before the entire loads were put back onto the same overcrowded A612 route.

Q7. The built, historic and natural environment
We agree with the Policy SP6 standards, and place particular emphasis on landscape character; flood risk; community amenity. As stated above, mainly in answer to Question 4, we have strong reservations about any claim, such as that at 3.49, that "restoration to wetland" has any meaningful contribution to make to local biodiversity. We strongly support the point made in paragraph 3.58 that the landscape in the Trent Washlands is particularly under pressure. We reiterate our concerns expressed earlier on issues mentioned under Flooding, paragraphs 3.61-3.64, but would add that increase in flood risk to areas of human settlement should not be contemplated at all, since the damage, both in financial terms and its destructive effect on people's lives, can far outweigh the value of material extracted. We therefore reject the assumption of paragraph 3.65 that it is sufficient "in some cases" merely "to reduce flood risks" from new mineral extraction plans. In our view there must always be an EIA before consideration of any such proposed quarrying. We state again our opposition to plans that would add significant amounts of heavy traffic to already-overloaded road systems. None of the sites in the present Draft is in the immediate vicinity of our Parish. However, under the previous Minerals Local Plan and the now-withdrawn first version of the current Draft Plan, proposals were made for gravel extraction on our immediate river bank, and then on the neighbouring Shelford bank, which would have brought quarrying to about 200 metres from the nearest houses in Burton Joyce. Therefore we are very conscious of the great value placed on the beautiful local landscape; and we would wish to avoid any such potential destructive impact at any site.

Q8 The Nottinghamshire Green Belt
The Green Belt is not itself designed to provide adequate protection against destructive mineral extraction operations. However, "beneficial use of the Green Belt" must include its landscape character, which is bound to be damaged by mineral working; and especially sand and gravel digging.

Q9 Mineral Safeguarding Consultation areas and associated minerals infrastructure
The greater part of this section is beyond our specific concerns or expertise. However, we view with alarm the reference to the wharf at Colwick, 3.90 and 3.91. The proposal for quarrying at Shelford, part of a revised version of the draft Minerals plan in the consultation and draft plan abandoned in 2017, would have had devastating consequences for Burton Joyce. This is not the place to raise those specific points again, but to say that the Shelford proposal has been excluded from this Draft for no doubt strong reasons. There is no reason to mention that wharf in this Draft Plan if there is not the expectation of adding the Shelford proposal at a later stage. The Fact that the wharf is out of use and part of an existing industrial estate is a positive reason to put that land to more productive use by removing the wharf, and removing also a spurious case for reviving that very threatening proposal.

Q10 Aggregate provision
We are clearly among those who, at the Issues and Options stage, referred to in the first box under MP1 on p.55, advocated a significant allowance for recycled materials as a replacement for newly-extracted aggregates. Given the very high proportion of aggregates in the minerals usage nationally, as quoted in paragraph 4.6, and the very high proportion that these materials represent in Nottinghamshire's minerals output, even a fairly small percentage contribution from recycled and secondary aggregates would make a very significant reduction to total extraction requirements. We must recognise that this is not in the financial interests of extraction businesses, nor perhaps does it help with imposed targets to be hit, but protection of the wider interests of the area and its inhabitants is the essence of planning controls. We therefore are also advocates for Option B in the forecast figures in the second box on that page, "a lower figure than Option A." But of course in the second set of Options we prefer that proposed, A, "Prioritise extensions to existing permitted quarries." We thus consider the figure for sand and gravel, 32.30 million tonnes, in Policy MP1, to be an overestimate that can lead to serious but avoidable harm to the area, and we object to the subsequent figures in the tables at 4.10.

Q11. The draft specific sand and gravel site allocations
Clearly this Council is among those described in the second paragraph of the first box under MP2: we consider that the impacts on local residents, the availability of capacity on the highway network and the availability of recycled materials in the main urban areas should override the attractions of an even geographical spread, and therefore we disagree with the Appraisal Findings under that heading. While in general terms we see benefits to river barging from some sites, this is subject to our severe concerns set out in the answer to Question 9. Since none of the specific proposed extraction sites in the remainder of this section is close to Burton Joyce or its road and transport routes, we make no comment on their individual merits but would simply wish to see that the same standards we would apply to our own area should apply to other places: the reduction in estimates of overall new-dug aggregate demand, and the protection of more densely inhabited parts of the County from the dangers, loss of quality of life, and environmental destruction that nearby quarrying operations would cause.

I am writing to OBJECT to the site Sand and Gravel provision site MP2s Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis.

The County Councils own Sustainability Assessment, shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the third most damaging in the long term.

The draft minerals local plan is unsound , in that the council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of "Maintaining a geographical spread" and therefore over riding the adverse impact on sustainability. However , the Council has stated that "there is no published data related to geographical spread".

There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the submarket areas. The County Councils statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.

Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.

The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.

There would be a major impact on the quality of life and the visual amenity of local people

Dear Sir / Madam
I strongly object to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site "MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis".
There is no current justification for this site. The County Council has already rejected this site as part of a previous draft of the MLP for environmental and other reasons.
I am concerned about the environmental damage to the area particularly the effect it will have on the Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which is less than 100m away and Holme Pit SSSI. Deep water ponds could also put children's safety at risk.
Personally I would miss being able to enjoy the peace and tranquillity in this area as I walk along the footpath on a regular basis. Not only does this help to keep me fit but it gives me enormous pleasure to watch the birds. If the site will be operating 11 hours a day and 6 days a week and the site will not be fully restored for up to 25 years this would be a tremendous loss for me.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Our family home has been in Clifton Village for over forty years, I very regularly visit our family home and enjoy the small remaining areas of countryside in and around this historic village. I would like to register that I OBJECT to the site - Sand and Gravel Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'.

I am very concerned by the development of this site for a variety of reasons:

- loss of important leisure for the village and surrounding areas (that area is a common place for our family to take walks, the areas of countryside around this historic village have been significantly reduced over the last forty years)
- impact on the landscape and Ancient Woodlands at Brandshill / Clifton Woods
- the effect on 79 hectares of wildlife habitats / agricultural land lost in the Green Belt for up to 25 years
- the impact on Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit SSSIs and 5 local Wildlife Site
- dust from heavy excavation machinery with 114 lorry movements per day
- noise and dust with resultant health issues from operations 7am - 6pm, 6 days per week, with dewatering pumps operating 24/7

Please can you register my OBJECTION for consideration when in your consolation.

Caythorpe Parish Council ( CPC ) wish to comment upon the Nottinghamshire County Council Draft Minerals Local Plan ( the Plan ) dated July to Sept. 2018 as follows :-

1) CPC understand and broadly support the principles set out in the Plan.

2) We note that previous proposals for quarrying sands and gravels at Shelford have now been withdrawn.

3) We draw your attention to concrete product manufacturing plants situated at Hoveringham who presumably are/will be importing sands and gravels . Some HGV's already use Caythorpe and Hoveringham Roads for accessing the manufacturing plants and we are concerned that such traffic may continue or indeed increase . For that reason CPC supports river transportation of quarried materials , a matter which could be better encouraged in the Plan . CPC are actively seeking a vehicle weight restriction on the Caythorpe and Hoveringham Roads .

3) CPC is situated in close proximity to the River Trent and mostly within Flood Zones 2 and 3 . For understandable reasons , the Strategic Flood Risk Report presented with the Plan is rather generalised and that more specific studies will be prepared as matters progress . At this stage CPC wish to emphasise that any mineral extraction operations which may increase flood risk to this Parish and surrounding areas would be vehemently opposed .

OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Environmental damage
* Barton / Mill Hill site evaluated as 3rd most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county by County Council's own Sustainability Assessment * Negative effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away) and Holme Pit SSSI. Site contains 5 SINCs (Sites of Important Nature Conservation) * Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site * Evidence that this site is rich in bird life and other species. 24 red and 22 amber listed bird species use the area for feeding and breeding * Corn Buntings and Barn Owls breed here. Grass snakes, harvest mice also present * Landscape damage * The site is in the Green Belt * Brandshill and Clifton Woods have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework * Geographical spread / minerals planning * Council have stated "there is no published data related to the geographical spread" and so their analysis and proposal is therefore flawed * Arguments about Geographical Spread should NOT be used to justify allocating the most environmentally damaging sites * There has been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. County Council comment that Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified * What it means to you and your household personally * Personal examples often have the most impact * Effect on the village and personal environment

* Generation of noise and dust from quarry operations * Effect on quality of life, and on what is technically called 'visual amenity'. Impossible to mitigate effect of operations 11 hours a day * Loss of important leisure area * Site not fully restored and established for up to 25 years * Loss of peace and tranquillity; area used for walking / fishing / horse riding / bird watching / photography * Impact on local economy * Bridleways / footpaths cross the site and would be diverted / closed. Impact on local businesses from reduction in passing trade from walkers, cyclists, horse riders * Historical site damage * Area rich in history with remains from Roman period, Iron and bronze age documented in the area * Ridge and furrow field pattern from middle ages * Adverse impact on Clifton Hall and Clifton Village Conservation Area * Loss of agricultural land * Additional costs from importing food / climate change * Plans to restore site mainly to marshland and standing water * Effect on grazing land especially on the respiratory health of horses * Flood risk * Already a flood risk area and can be difficult to get insurance * Safety issues * Deep water ponds a risk to children * Plant and machinery close to bridleway and footpath * Financial loss * Planning blight / house price loss * Sustainable transport * Council has failed to follow its own policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not selecting Shelford where 40% of minerals would be transported by barge

Dear Sir/Madam
Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your consultation. It should be noted that there are Sewer indicated to be within or adjacent to the site allocations for Cromford and Cromford Triangle. It is therefore recommended that Severn Trent are consulted further as development of the mineral extraction plans are brought forward to enable any required diversions to be implemented.
Please keep us informed when your plans are further developed when we will be able to offer more detailed comments and advice.
For your information we have set out some general guidelines that may be useful to you.
Position Statement
As a water company we have an obligation to provide water supplies and sewage treatment capacity for future development. It is important for us to work collaboratively with Local Planning Authorities to provide relevant assessments of the impacts of future developments. For outline proposals we are able to provide general comments. Once detailed developments and site specific locations are confirmed by local councils, we are able to provide more specific comments and modelling of the network if required. For most developments we do not foresee any particular issues. Where we consider there may be an issue we would discuss in further detail with the Local Planning Authority. We will complete any necessary improvements to provide additional capacity once we have sufficient confidence that a development will go ahead. We do this to avoid making investments on speculative developments to minimise customer bills.
Sewage Strategy
Once detailed plans are available and we have modelled the additional capacity, in areas where sufficient capacity is not currently available and we have sufficient confidence that developments will be built, we will complete necessary improvements to provide the capacity. We will ensure that our assets have no adverse effect on the environment and that we provide appropriate levels of treatment at each of our sewage treatment works.
Surface Water and Sewer Flooding
We expect surface water to be managed in line with the Government's Water Strategy, Future Water. The strategy sets out a vision for more effective management of surface water to deal with the dual pressures of climate change and housing development. Surface water needs to be managed sustainably. For new developments we would not expect surface water to be conveyed to
2
our foul or combined sewage system and, where practicable, we support the removal of surface water already connected to foul or combined sewer.
We believe that greater emphasis needs to be paid to consequences of extreme rainfall. In the past, even outside of the flood plain, some properties have been built in natural drainage paths. We request that developers providing sewers on new developments should safely accommodate floods which exceed the design capacity of the sewers.
To encourage developers to consider sustainable drainage, Severn Trent currently offer a 100% discount on the sewerage infrastructure charge if there is no surface water connection and a 75% discount if there is a surface water connection via a sustainable drainage system. More details can be found on our website
https://www.stwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/regulations-and-forms/application-forms-and-guidance/infrastructure-charges/
Water Quality
Good quality river water and groundwater is vital for provision of good quality drinking water. We work closely with the Environment Agency and local farmers to ensure that water quality of supplies are not impacted by our or others operations. The Environment Agency's Source Protection Zone (SPZ) and Safe Guarding Zone policy should provide guidance on development. Any proposals should take into account the principles of the Water Framework Directive and River Basin Management Plan for the Severn River basin unit as prepared by the Environment Agency.
Water Supply
When specific detail of planned development location and sizes are available a site specific assessment of the capacity of our water supply network could be made. Any assessment will involve carrying out a network analysis exercise to investigate any potential impacts.
We would not anticipate capacity problems within the urban areas of our network, any issues can be addressed through reinforcing our network. However, the ability to support significant development in the rural areas is likely to have a greater impact and require greater reinforcement to accommodate greater demands.
Water Efficiency
Part G of Building Regulations specify that new homes must consume no more than 125 litres of water per person per day. We recommend that you consider taking an approach of installing specifically designed water efficient fittings in all areas of the property rather than focus on the overall consumption of the property. This should help to achieve a lower overall consumption than the maximum volume specified in the Building Regulations.
We recommend that in all cases you consider:
* Single flush siphon toilet cistern and those with a flush volume of 4 litres.
* Showers designed to operate efficiently and with a maximum flow rate of 8 litres per minute.
* Hand wash basin taps with low flow rates of 4 litres or less.
* Water butts for external use in properties with gardens.
3
To further encourage developers to act sustainably Severn Trent currently offer a 100% discount on the clean water infrastructure charge if properties are built so consumption per person is 110 litres per person per day or less. More details can be found on our website
https://www.stwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/regulations-and-forms/application-forms-and-guidance/infrastructure-charges/
We would encourage you to impose the expectation on developers that properties are built to the optional requirement in Building Regulations of 110 litres of water per person per day.
We hope this information has been useful to you and we look forward in hearing from you in the near future.

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis.

I'm sure you are aware of the many objective reasons why this site is so opposed by the local community. For that reason, I won't repeat them here.

From a personal standpoint, I regularly cycle the route through Brandshill and Clifton Woods on my commute. This area is unique in its tranquility and it is amazing to think that it is so close to a large city. In a world where it is almost impossible to find seclusion and be at one with nature, the Mill Hill site is a valuable asset, not just for the local community but for everyone in the Nottingham area. Once you go ahead with these plans, you will irrevocably destroy that.

When I don't cycle through Clifton Woods, I use the Green Street route to get to work. This road is fairly quiet save for a few cars, since most traffic use the new A453. When lorries do use Green Street, they invariably do not leave anywhere near enough room as they pass - I have only had one near-death experience on that stretch of road and this was due to a lorry attempting to pass while there was a car on the other side of the road. With the planned 114 lorry movements per day, you will effectively be increasing the likelihood of cycle road accidents and possibly even deaths. To that you can add the increased likelihood of road traffic accidents at Mill Hill roundabout as cars rarely slow down to allow traffic from Green Street to enter the roundabout.

I would like to object to the quarry plans for sand and gravel provision nr Barton in Fabis the above area (MP2s Mill Hill), as it is too close to an area of SSSI and local natural nature spots.

We need to have these natural areas for local residents to enjoy.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

I am writing to confirm i wish to object to the above site because with a chest infection i strongly object. If it does go ahead I shall probably leave the district.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.