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.
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.
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.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Re: Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2S

I write in reference to this proposal which I Strongly object to on the grounds that this site is of significant environmental importance.

I have written against the 2 previous applications and am horrified that, yet another proposal has been allowed or even considered.

Being a nurse in Primary Care I have significant concerns about the health impact on the older residents of Barton & those suffering from a debilitating respiratory condition- e.g. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and asthma which impede breathing & is triggered by such factors as poor air quality, dust and other environmental conditions. The close proximity of the "proposed" site will be a major issue with the dust and the constant air pollution from the vehicles making return trips ion order to transport the sand & gravel and all the necessary machinery from the site. The issue will also have a significant impact on the residents of the elderly accommodation at Larkhill in Clifton.

The proposed site is widely used by local residents, ramblers, fisherman, bird watchers, horse-riders & cyclists. There is very little available land for these pursuits to be able to move too, this will severely compromise leisure facilities especially when it is reported that the future generations will need to be encouraged to take more exercise. By taking away any "free" amenities such as green belt this will surely have an impact on the future health of the nation.

Children in Barton in Fabis have been afforded the luxury of freedom to play within the village- their safety will be severely compromised by the heavy goods vehicles which will frequent the locality.

In addition, the noise and dust from quarrying will impact on the wildlife e.g. owls, bats, & the beautiful population of birds we have had the pleasure of welcoming into our gardens e.g. gold finches, bull finches, wood-peckers, chaffinches, robins, hedgehogs to name but a few.

I have seen no evidence to support the need for the site as with sustainable & recycled materials there has been a drop in the requirement of newly produced material to build any new buildings. Even the County Council has stated that the current "landbank" for sand & gravel exceeds government targets.

It has been suggested that local building projects support the application but as these are either not due to start or are better supplied by existing or potential quarries nearer to those sites. There is a new Mineral Local plan in preparation and this will surely have a huge bearing on the recalculation of future demand.

We have had to endure the construction of the new A453, we have the ensuing building of dwellings & industrial buildings on Clifton Pastures, which in itself will create a huge impact on the villages please do not put us under threat of yet more devastation.

I therefore urge you to reject this application completely.

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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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 have an older horse who is very jumpy and nervous around noise and vibration. I suffer from arthritis in my hands. With my pony being very jumpy he will hurt my hands and also with the dust flying around I dont want my pony getting dust in its mouth and eyes.

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.
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 have asthma and was very ill with the dust from the tram Park and Ride developments. Many residents suffer with chest conditions.

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.
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.
My husband has asthma and was very ill with the dust from the tram Park and Ride developments. Many residents suffer with chest conditions.

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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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, 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.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Ref. Sand & Gravel Provisions Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

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

My daughter moved to this area 3 years ago for its peace and tranquility and now for the second time finds where she lives is in close proximity to the above proposed project.

Only 9 miles away is Attenborough Nature Reserve which covers 145 hectares. The wildlife that use this nature reserve depend on the surrounding areas so rich in life for their very existence. The overflow from this reserve can be seen in and around Barton in Fabis such as otters, Kingfishers, water voles, barn owls, kestrels and hobbys to name but a few, the list is endless.

We are encourage to make the most of our countryside and enjoy outdoor pursuits for our well being and mental health only to have them deminished on a grand scale.

Looking at the proposed map the boundary appears very close the rivers edge surely impacting on the houses which line the river. Is it their intention to access water from the river.

Now my daughter lives in this area I have grown to love it and for a long long time didn't even know it existed only for the strong possibility of seeing it destroyed.

I urge you to seriously consider the implications before agreeing to this unnecessary project.

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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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 writing to you to object to the proposed sand and gravel quarry - MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis.
Your policy aim to transport sand and gravel by river barge cannot apply here. Shelford would be a more suitable site which you have now removed.
The Shelford proposal is in the Council Leader Kay Cutts ward (a budding dictator perhaps) which smacks of unfair tactics.
We had enough of heavy transport when the tram lines were constructed and we do not want any more.
Besides your poorly chosen site is in the green belt. Your councillors should be ashamed of themselves.

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 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.
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.
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, 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.
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.

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.
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.
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 wish to register my strongest objection to MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis.
Environmental damage - The Mill Hill site was evaluated by the County Councils 'Sustainability Assessment' as the 3rd most damaging of all those proposed in the county. It was also declared there would be a very negative effect on the Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which runs very close to the edge of the proposed site - in fact less than 100m away and would also drastically affect Holme Pit another SSSI.
I also understand that Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have also registered their objection to this proposed sites on the grounds that this is an area of rare wildlife that needs to be protected including 24 red and 22 amber listed species.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods are listed 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 sand and gravel works would do enormous damage to this very treasured area which would not be restored and established for up to 25 years.
The effect on the environment as a whole and on the local villages and the population living in the vicinity would be enormous. The noise and dust from the site operations and the heavy lorry transport to and from the site on a continuous basis for 11 hours per day would seriously affect the quality of life for all those living in the area. And of course there is the loss of leisure area which is currently used by so many of the locals and not least visitors to the area for leisure activities such as walking, fishing, horse riding and bird watching.
The overall effect of the workings on the area from so many different stand points would be extremely negative and cannot and should not be ignored. The effect on house prices is of serious concern as is the loss of agricultural land and the increased risk of flooding to the area which is already designated as a flood risk area.
And finally, the Council has failed to adhere to its own policy aim which is to 'prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge - which of course with the Shelford site, which would allow for at least 40% to be transported in this way avoiding an enormous amount of extra air pollution and congestion caused by heavy road transport. So, one has to wonder as to why the shelford site has been removed from consideration?

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The Barton / Mill Hill site was evaluated as the 3rd most damaging site in the long term of all of those proposed in the county by your own Sustainability Assessment.
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 are 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 site would impact on two SSSIs - 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.
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 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.

As a resident who resides in close proximity to the proposed site, we have already endured the upheaval of the A453 widening and the tram project. This proposal will have a considerable impact on my health and well being due to the loss of peace and tranquillity with noise and dust.

We agree with the Policy MP2 and that site allocation site MP2s is the most suitable site to supply the Nottingham market in the most sustainable manner, given the size of the mineral deposit and the location of the site.

I OBJECT to the site at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s) for the following reasons.

Damage to wildlife habitat:
This site is within the Green Belt. The County Council's own Sustainability Assessment evaluated this site as being the most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county - and for this reason it was rejected in the last Draft Plan in 2014. Development in this area would devastate prime wildlife habitat for many species. The proposal includes 5 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation - 4 of these are wetland areas which are declining rapidly in Nottinghamshire (more than 40% since 1940) and are currently a scarce resource in Nottinghamshire, according to the Nottinghamshire Biological Action Plan. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have voiced very serious concerns, stating that the site supports a diverse range of birds for feeding and breeding, including many birds of high conservation concern (red & amber listed). Rare reptiles and mammals have also been spotted in the area (grass snakes, harvest mice & otters). The RSPB have stated that the continued protection of the local wildlife habitats on this site should be seen as crucial, in line with section 117 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed restoration will come too late and cannot compensate for the loss of habitat that will occur. Once the area has been destroyed, the habitat and the current range of biodiversity seen in this area will be lost forever if the proposal goes ahead.

Loss of important leisure area:
The proposed site is valuable amenity land for local residents and people from further afield. A bridleway and a long section of public footpath are within the site. It is a tranquil spot of countryside that my family and many other people, adults and families, use for many different pursuits including walking, cycling, horseriding, dog walking, birdwatching, and photography. This area gives the local Home Educating community an essential natural space for environmental, wildlife and nature studies.

Loss of agricultural land:
Developing this site will cause the permanent loss of high-grade farm land. There are no plans to restore this land back to agricultural use so this will add to the cost of food imports for this country. We should be preserving and safeguarding this country's agricultural land and our ability to produce our own food.

Flood risk:
The County Council's own Sustainability Appraisal identified the flood risk as "very negative". It is completely unacceptable to select this site until all flood risk implications have been fully identified. Any statement that quarry workings are 'flood compatible' is irrelevant until proved via a full assessment.

Safety issues:
Quarry workings produce deep water ponds which pose a real danger to children and animals. The bridleway from Clifton to Barton would provide easy access to the gravel workings. No amount of safety precautions can eliminate this danger completely.

Generation of noise:
Sound in this area is carried for long distances around the Trent valley e.g. the noise from the train track on the other side of the river is easy to hear in Barton. There will be considerable impact on quality of life to myself and family, villagers in Barton and all those who use this area for leisure pursuits from heavy machinery operating 12 hours/day, 6 days/week. No amount of mitigation and measure to limit the effects can overcome this.

Historical damage:
The area is rich in history and archaeology. A remnant of 'ridge and furrow' ploughing is present in the proposed site. This and any number of historical artefacts will be lost forever. A full assessment of the impact of the proposed site in this respect has not been undertaken.

Effect of village environment:
Barton-in-Fabis is a quiet rural village with a long history and important listed buildings. The proposed site is an essential part of the village setting. The proposed development is completely incompatible with the village community and will jeopardise the many activities/events that take place here.

Unjustified criterion:
The Council has introduced the new criterion of maintaining a geographical spread of sites across the County. This has been done despite the Council's statement (relating to their earlier 'Issues and Options' consultation) that "Generally, respondents felt that prioritising geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, instead each site should be judged on its own merits." By introducing this new criterion the Council is going directly against the views of the many people who responded. The Council has not produced any data to justify the geographical spread of sites. In addition, the Council's new Draft Minerals Local Plan has stated that the need for sand and gravel is not as great as previously calculated in 2014 and that there are alternative sites available to the one at Barton.

MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis 3.0mt**
I want to object to this being included as the ecology of the area will be severely affected as the RSPB and Notts Wildlife Trust have stated. It is an important habitat for many types of birds and the extraction will also extend its effect by impacting on the wildlife at Attenborough Nature Reserve an important wintering ground for many rare species.
The area is used recreationally for walking ,running, cycling and horse riding, at a time when councils are supposed to be encouraging healthy lifestyles, these activities would be serverely affected as there will be more noise, traffic and areas that could no longer be accessed.
It will have a major effect on local residentswho will have to contend with the increase in noise, dust and traffic which will decimate a peaceful, beautiful corner of Nottinghamshire

I have real concerns about the Mill Hill proposal around Barton in Fabis. I ride my horse out regularly and walk my dog in this area as it is a designated bridle path area. The proposal would mean a great disruption to the land where over 50 horse orders and hundreds of dog walkers are regularly out and about. Even if the bridlepath was somehow kept open the noise fm the conveyor belts and traffic will prevent anyone with a horse being able to go anywhere near .

There are great stretches of natural habitat with a range of wild plants and creatures that can't be found in other areas. This would be destroyed but this gravel pit. If it was an area where no one JD the land I could understand but hundreds of people people use it to walk their dogs and ride their bikes and horses.

This cannot be allowed to go ahead

In regards to the intended site near Barton in Fabis (Mp2s).
In my opinion although I can appreciate the need for minerals I do not believe that opening a new site here is an appropriate solution. The financial cost as well as the level of disruption to the surrounding residential areas by far out ways the need for minerals. With the widening of the A453 and other construction works has seen an increase in traffic through the Clifton area, which has also meant less Greenland and increased pollution. Opening this site in this location would have a negative impact on local residents.

Rotherham Council supports the proposed sand and gravel allocations.

The consultation draft Doncaster and Rotherham Local Aggregate Assessment 2018 identifies that the sand and gravel landbank may well be sustained beyond the proposed 17 year plan period for Doncaster and the 15 year plan period for Rotherham. However without new permissions the reserve toward the end of the plan period may fall below 7 years. It goes on to note that to meet development demand in the short to medium term sand, gravel and crushed rock (if needed) will continue to be imported from the Idle Valley (Nottinghamshire), East Riding and Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and Derbyshire.

It is noted that the Minerals Plan identifies site allocations in the north of the County which could potentially continue to supply South Yorkshire.

North Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire authorities border Doncaster and Rotherham with significant flows of minerals between the areas. An outcome of previous engagement between the authorities (including Doncaster, Rotherham and Nottinghamshire) was the agreement in 2013 of a joint minerals position. The relevant Councils continue to engage as required by the Duty to Co-operate, and further work is ongoing to review the position statement and to develop statements of common ground as required by the revised NPPF (July 2018). Rotherham Council will continue to engage with Nottinghamshire County Council and others as appropriate to meet these requirements.

Dear Sir

Drafts Minerals Local Plan
Sand and Gravel Provision Site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton-in-Fabis

I write to object to the proposed inclusion of the above site in the draft mineral plan.

I believe that your own sustainability Assessment confirms that inclusion of the Barton site would be the most damaging in terms of its impact on the environment and landscape and indeed that it was initially excluded on that basis. Please let me know what has changed in this respect.

Now we find that the Shelford Site has been taken out of the draft plan. It seems that the new criterion of maintaining" a spread of geographical sites" has been devised to justify replacing Shelford with Barton. Surely this cannot override the environmental issues, of which, as you are well aware, there are many?

Yours faithfully

Reference: Objection to Policy MP" 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 most strongly to the above site.
1) 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.
2)The County Council has remarkably introduced a spurious rationale of 'maintaining a spread of geographical sites' and appears to have found unfathomable reasons for excluding the Shelford site which should have been included as a more sustainable and appropriate transport based option. The fact that the Shelford site is within the ward of council leader suggests that she is acting unreasonably through a personal interest that is clouding rationale judgement and the potential non-legitmate influence of her and others in the process should be investigated.
3) The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site off "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". 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 sites which use this mode of transport. This is a serious oversight and needs re-evaluating.
4) Development of the Barton Site would result in major impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest). Attenborough nature reserve and Holme Pit which are close to the site and on five SINCs (Sites of Important Nature Conservation) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
5) Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
6) The site is in the Green Belt. Additionally, the 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.
7)The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
8) There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity for local people. Thee will be as well a loss of peace and tranquility in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits.
9) I, personally, use this area for leisure walking and running and observation of wildlife regularly and with my family and children and this would have a big negative personal impact. Bridleways and footpaths that I and other use would be diverted and closed. There would be the creation of safety issues for children and others.
10) There would be an adverse effect upon Clifton Hall and the Clifton Village Conservation Area with additionally loss of agricultural land for local farmers.

11) 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 grateful to you for looking into the above reasons and adjusting this totally unsound plan.

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.
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.