Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to confirm I wish to OBJECT to the above site because I live at Lark Hill Retirement Village, which lies directly in line of the prevailing wind from the proposed site. All residents here are over 65 years, most over 75. The dust and noise would be a dangerous health hazard for all the residents. Please consider these facts. There are other sites that do not impinge so heavily on so many senior citizens, all in one relatively small location.
I came to Lark Hill to have a peaceful retirement because of my health conditions, heart, walking a balance problems, and they are certainly not going to be helped if this site is allowed.

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.
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.
I object to the noise and dirt, dust etc. That will effect the area around Larkhill village and create a poor atmosphere over the village environment.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

I am writing to object to the inclusion of the Barton in Fabis/Mill Hill site (MP2s) in the new draft Minerals Local Plan. I know this area well as the site is crossed by foot and bridle paths which makes it ideal for walking and cycling. Such recreational opportunities will be impacted upon by the destruction of the riverside meadows and trees, and blighted by noise machinery, making it an area to avoid rather than enjoy. The area is also rich in wildlife, including many species of birds such as barn owls, kestrels, kingfishers, oyster catchers and skylarks. There are also many Local Wildlife Sites and it is close to Attenborough and Holme Pit SSSIs. It is also very historic, as the landscape predominantly consists of flood meadows, and has changed little since it was owned by Clifton Hall.
As the area is so close to the urban edge of Nottingham, it is valued by people like myself as it allows easy access to open countryside and provides opportunities to observe a wide range of wildlife. The site should be dropped from the draft plan and replaced by less environmentally damaging option as beautiful areas such as this on the edge of large conurbations are fast becoming a rarity.

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.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust.
This plan generates 114 lorry movements a day on the section of Green Street adjoining Mill Hill. This was approved in the A453 dualling plans as being part of a route for non-motorised users, but this number of lorry movements is not compatible with safe cycling, walking or horse riding. Also, entering and leaving the roundabout at Mill Hill is already hazardous for all road users due to traffic from the A453 not slowing down and this number of lorry movements would make this junction even more hazardous.
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.
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 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.
The County and City Councils Rights of Way officers responded to the planning application last September stating the Bridlepath and footpath across the site are well used routes which are popular with horse riders, and cyclists and walkers. In this response it was stated that they had major concerns about safety issues for horse riders regarding the bridleway passing over the conveyor via a ramp near Burrows Farm. These concerns relate to ground vibrations and noise, particularly as horses are more sensitive to feeling vibration and being spooked by both this noise and the fact they will see the conveyor working.
There would be a major impact onm the quality of life and visual amenity of community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land 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.

Question 11 concerning policy MP2, draft proposal MP2s objections:
This representor's 2018 Issues and Options consultation comment, is to be reappraised an objection. My (&) numerous - of what are now MP2s-related-objections written in on the politically withdrawn minerals local plan, and on what is now a MP2s-related planning application, are essentially relevant concerning this current consultation process.
The planning and environmental mal-cumulative, everything else that's been foisted at the adjacent, rural parish - and out towards Lockington; where's the 'geographical spread' in that (?)
And so on the related proposed at Thrumpton parish, my stance is objection.
Is it not somewhat volte-face - when the Council tends to policy prefer 'site' extensions - that another location is currently considered too sizeable (?)
The Councils' staff ought to have been working to designate Ancient Woodland Brandshill Wood, Barton in Fabis.
A description to another local planning authority is under way re where I would not want to see what looks very damaging 'fracking'.
The draft plan's undertow throughout would be provision-linked to LPAs' negative urbanizing vision. Which, even down to demolition-recycling at Bunny, with regard to my local environment, the draft plan is: failing, environmental-degradation complicit, encroaching, in a number of matters wasteful, environmentally unsound.

I wish to object to the draft Minerals Plan and inclusion of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis within it.I often walk this area and value its environment because it is close to the city but very tranquil. It is important that areas of green belt like this, close to where people live are preserved. They are extremely valuable as a social asset. The wildlife here is also important, and the area supports Attenborough Nature Reserve by providing feeding and roosting grounds. These areas need to be protected and used in sustainable ways. Although restoration is proposed, we need to take account of the impact on the current population and what the loss of these locally important areas means. We do not need the sand and gravel that is proposed will be extracted from this area, but we do need the countryside that will be destroyed. Your own data shows this to be one of the most adversely affected by minerals development of those considered and that there are alternatives which are less damaging (e.g. Shelford) The minerals plan therefore needs to be revised.

I am writing to confirm I wish to OBJECT to the above site because I live at Lark Hill Retirement Village, which lies directly in line of the prevailing wind from the proposed site. All residents here are over 65 years, most over 75. The dust and noise would be a dangerous health hazard for all the residents. Please consider these facts. There are other sites that do not impinge so heavily on so many senior citizens, all in one relatively small location.
Additionally the reason Lark Hill is here and all the residents are here is to enjoy a peaceful and healthy retirement.
Since moving in we have had all the dirt, dust and disruption of the tram works and the widening of the A453. Now that has settled down an even longer lasting plan is on hand with this proposed site, which is going to impact greatly on the healthy lifestyle we hoped to enjoy. Along with the dirt, dust and noise there will also be increased heavy traffic passing constantly. I dont know how much you know about Lark Hill, but there is almost a constant wind blowing down from the area of the M1 so the dust is going to be a real problem for us.
I understand that a large housing estate is planned for the area between the tram station and the gravel pit, who would want to buy a property there.

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.
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.

I am writing to object most strongly to MP2s
I retired to this area 9 years ago, and the evil we have had to tolerate, both with the tram works and the upgrading of the A453 road works, begger's belief, the traffic problems, the pollution, the sand blowing into our properties, and damage to our cars.
On top of this it has obliterated most of the local wildlife, we had many different species of birds vist our feeding station, when we moved in. They have now all gone. Thankfully they started to return this year, but only the odd ones.
The plans you are putting forwards, would totally wipe out the wildlife for several miles. This would include the Attenborough Nature Reserve, and also a vast amount of green belt land, one of the best view points in Nottingham is from the top of Mill Hill, to look straight down the Trent Valley. To take all this away would be a travesty, and deprive Nottingham of an area of Natural beauty.
Taking into consideration, the amount of HGv's that would be in use daily, would totally overwhelm the local roads, to be working from 0800hrs to 1800hrs, covers two rush hour periods, where traffic still becomes gridlocked, around the Clifton Bridge and A453 intercahnge, in the evening going from the Dunkirk flyover to Nottingham Knight island, and congestion the full length of the A453 in Clifton. The people of this area have suffered enough, through really poor planning.
I would also like to point out that before the tram came to Clifton Centre, there were pedestrian crossings, and a certain councillor, promised they would be returned. Crossing the road especially near the medical centre, for many elderly and disabled people, is taking your life in your hands. I have witnessed cars speeding up at this point to avoid stopping.
If this letter has been read, I truly hope that you reconsider, what you are asking of the local population of this area. Enough is enough.

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.
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.
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.
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.

MP2s Mill Hill
The proposal is for a project with a short gain and a larger long term loss.
Several sites which include SSSIs, ancient woods and nature reserves, the largest of which is the Attenborough Centre, will be at risk. You will have seen the red and yellow lists of species which will be disturbed and may be lost forever. This part of the Trent Valley is a wildlife corridor running well into and even through the city.

On the human side an historic village Barton In Fabis will suffer badly. In addition the mIll Hill area is particulalry windy and Lark Hithe geriatric ghetto in which I live lies down wind as does the summerfield area of clifton. The dust and noise from the works will cause a number of health problems which will be very costly socially and financially.
One always says 'not in my back yard' but this is in the Citys back yard and playground.
There are many other valid objections which others will raise. Please think again with the long haul in mind.

Object to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel provsion and inclusion of site MP2s Mill Hill Barton in Fabis

I was born in barton, I am 94 and have loved every minute of my life here we have had so much change in the area round our village the new A453 and the tram all taking land from the green belt. Now 3500 houses and industry in the green belt, now worse thing in the green belt in a lovely peaceful area well used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders, fishing. Most people come to get away from it, I cant believe you have not refused this area you are supposed to look after while in office. Thje damage to Barton/ Mill hill site evaluated as 3rd most environmental damage site of all those proposed in the county by county councils own sustainability assessment negative effect on attenborough nature reserve, SSSI which run alongs the edge of the site less then 100m away and Holme Pit SSSI. Site contains 5 LWS all the noise of the machinery, beeping every time they reverse. Lorrys pick up the gravel dropping into the lorry making more beeping noises all day long. We live in a village and noise travels along the valley we have attenborouhg for years and had constant noise and dust. you have failed to follow your own policy by not using Shelford where 40% of minerals would be transported by barge what happened there? This lovely area that has been involved in your area i would love to put my feelings down. But want stock to consider level of heritage.

P.S. Just remember God does not pay debts with money.

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.
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,

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and gravel provision site and inclusion of MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis.

In my view, the thinking behind this decision to include this beautiful part of the county in the provision for Sand and gravel is totally flawed.

The Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this is the most damaging of all sites in the (very long) operation phase and the third most damaging in the longer term.

Why the new and unevidence concept of "geographic spread" was plucked out of the air at the last moment to somehow justify the decision needs to be investigated.

It makes no sense at all. To then declare that alternative sites at Shelford or Coddington are "too big" is ridiculous. just work them later or more slowly!

The failure to choose sites where barge transport can be used shows a notable failure to give consideration to councils own policies to prioritize such sites.

The Barton/ Clifton/ Trent Valley Way is beautiful countryside, an one where we and our children have grown up, played and enjoyed the areas which are now and far between.

Ripping it up for sand and gravel would be a crime and against a plethore of council policies.

The decision to include Barton/ Mill Hill can only have been taken as a result of political interference of the very worse sort. It should be revisited and the culprits at the very top of the council exposed.

Policy MP2 sand and gravel provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis

I would wish to register my STRONGEST OBJECTION to the above plan for Sand and Gravel extraction and would comment as follows.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE- The Mill Hill Site was evaluated by the County Councils own sustainability assessment as the 3rd most environmentally damaging of all those proposed in the country. It was also declared that 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, PSRB, CPRE, Ramblers association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have also registered their objection to this proposed site on the grounds that this is an area of rare wildlife that needs to be protected including 24 RED and 22 AMBER listed species.

2. The site would be in designated GREEN BELT and Brandshill and Clifton Woods are listed as Ancient Woodland and do have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework. 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.

3. 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 of ALL those living in the area. And of course, there is the loss of this 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.

4. The overall effect of the working on the area from so many 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

5. Finally, the Council has failed to adhere to its own policy aim which is to 'prioritize sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' which of course would be the case 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!?

Reference Sand and gravel provision site MP2s mill hill nr Barton in Fabis

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel provision and inclusion MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis for the following reasons:

The gravel LANDBANK is currently in excess of government targets as stated by the County Council, and therefore does not justify the site.

The count council has already objected to this site as part of a former draft of the MLP for reasons including environmental.

The Barton site was deemed the 3rd environmentally harmful of those proposed in the County by the COUNTY COUNCILS INDEPENDENT SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT.

This site will have a detrimental effect on ATTNEBOROUGH NATURE RESERVE SSSI and HOLME PIT SSSI as both sites are close by.

The site is rich in animal and bird species including feeding and breeding grounds for 24 red species and 22 amber listed species.

Noise, dust and the volume of vehicles to/from the site will have an adverse effect on all citizens.

Heavy lorry movements are anticipated at 114 per day. However no mention is made of other vehicle access to/from the site site which could vastly increase vehicular use.

Operations will be from 7am to 6pm 6 days a week and pumps operating around the clock, so there will be no respite from pollution and noise for citizens.

Citizens who have breathing and respiratory problems will be affected by pollution. Furthermore, evidence is emerging that air pollution may increase the danger of developing DEMENTIA (Findings published in BMJ Open). The cost of health issues caused by pollution will seriously impact on the individual, family, community and the N.H.S.

Why is the Barton;/ Mill hill site now in the Draft Minerals Local Plan?

The rationale for the Barton site is to "maintain a spread of geographical sites". This has not been used before and overrides the SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT which allows the most damaging sites to now be included.

The council have previously stated that they wish to "PRIORITIZE SITES WITH SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT". The former inclusion of the Shelford site where 40% of the materials would go by barge therefore pollution would be far less than the Barton Site. Shelford is in the ward of Council leader Kay Cutts.

Finally there are deep concerns that the quarry will lead to other extensions such as landfill sites.

Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to confirm I wish to OBJECT to the above site because I live at Lark Hill Retirement Village, which lies directly in line of the prevailing wind from the proposed site. All residents here are over 65 years, most over 75. The dust and noise would be a dangerous health hazard for all the residents. Please consider these facts. There are other sites that do not impinge so heavily on so many senior citizens, all in one relatively small location.
Additionally I would stress:

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.

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 tranquility in an area used extensively by the 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.

Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to confirm I wish to OBJECT to the above site because I live at Lark Hill Retirement Village, which lies directly in line of the prevailing wind from the proposed site. All residents here are over 65 years, most over 75. The dust and noise would be a dangerous health hazard for all the residents. Please consider these facts. There are other sites that do not impinge so heavily on so many senior citizens, all in one relatively small location.
Additionally I would stress:
I suffer from BRONCIECTATUS (holes in my lungs) Here are many residents at Lark Hill who suffer from lung and respiratory diseases.

The dusty would come into our homes, just as it did when the tram site was being developed.

Sitting on our balcony would be impossible and our windows would have to be closed, in hot weather often windows are essential, as is sitting outside. The double glazing does not keep noise out, as it does not keep the noise of the road A453 traffic out.

It is a residential area into which we moved our money and trust, we need peace and tranquility for our well being

OBJECT to policy MP2 gravel site Mill Hill barton in fabis

Dear sir/ Madam,

I write yet again to let you know about my concern about the gravel being at Barton in Fabis, and on Green Belt. I object strongly my reasons are environmental damage, ancient woodland at Brandshill Clifton Woods it has special protection under national planning policy framework. There is no published data related to geographic spread Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.

As for me i find it very hard and expensive to get house insurance I will be very near to the gravel site and the noise dust will affect me greatly.
Peace and tranquility will be affected.

Walking, horse riding, fishing, bird watching photogrpahy bridleways, footpaths cyclists to mention but a few. The area is rich in history from roman period, bronze age loss of agricultural land

Safety, children and people if ponds were left to marshland
Attenborough nature reserve, SSSI birds and different species, It would be less then 100m away from Holme Pit SSSI, site contains 5 LWS and local wildlife
I am very worried about floodrisk
Financial house price loss mnot being able to get house insurance and if we can its very expensive.
Council has failed its own policy to prioritize sites with potenital for transporting sand and gravel by river barge
By not selecting Shelford where they can transport by barge Shelford would be the best place.

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

OBJECT

Dear Sir/Madam,

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 operation phase and 3rd most damaging 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 geographic 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'

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 tranquility 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 that 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 peoples 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.

Re:MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton In Fabis
Regarding this plan, I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposed site. The site is extremely close to a residential area - Barton In Fabis village cant avoid having a major impact on the quality of life for the residents. To impose such extensive and long term works so close to a residential area is entirely unreasonable. The noise and dust that will be created over a long period of time by the use of quarrying machinery and lorry movements will substantially reduce the quality of life and may create some health risks.
The site is in a green belt area, and adjacent woods - Brandshill and Clifton Woods are designated as Ancient Woodland - which will be impacted by this proposed site.
Wildlife including corn buntings and owls breed on the site and the area is rich in local wildlife. Furthermore, the Atenborough Nature reserve is very close by and many birds cross from there to these fields in the course of their natural habitats.

Natural England, The RSPB, The CPRE, the Ramblers Association and Nottingham Wildlife Trust have already objected, highlighting the commonly known fact that this area is a valuable resource for animal and bird life and for users of the countryside for leisure and nature watching purposes.
Other users include walkers, fisherman, horse riders and photographers
There are bridleways and footpaths across the land that are fully used and appreciated by visitors and their loss would have a detrimental impact on users.
Furthermore, the area has remains from Roman, Iron age and Bronze age and ancient ridge and furrow field pattern from the middle ages.
I live on the river bank at Trentside in an old raised wooden property and am therefore very aware of the flooding that occurs in this area. During the winter the water levels frequently breach the river bank and flood the fields extensively around my house, to the point where I and my neighbours must use boats to access our properties. These levels can remain for 2-3 weeks. It is hard to imagine how quarrying works in nearby fields at the same level can escape this threat as the water rises through the ground as well as over the river bank and is impossible to stop.
With this occurring in a working quarry environment there is great risk of exposed earthworks being carried by flood water and contaminating the surrounding area and the river downstream. Any post flood pumping to remove the water from the works could also carry alot of contamination and sediment in to the river causing great potential environmental damage.
The water can rise around 2.8 metres from summer levels and has surrounded the house and filled the adjacent fields. I have a number of images and film clips that show the flooding and these could be used by a surveyor to accurately measure the height of flood waters. I can make these available if required.
To summarise, the combination of the use of the site by people for leisure, proximity to a residential area, the presence of ancient rights of way, the natural habitats and natural beauty, the historical aspect and the flood risk surely combine to render the site unsuitable to be destroyed for the purpose of mineral extraction.

MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton In Fabis

We are writing to object to the site close to our home. We live in Lark Hill Retirement Village and our bungalow is on the extreme west of the village, as such it is very close to the Mill Hill roundabout on the A453 which lies directly in the line of the prevailing wind from the proposed site.
We consider therefore that this development if it were to go ahead would have a serious adverse effect on our quality of life and well being, as it would for the other eight bungalows in our courtyard and the rest of the village.
Due to the prevailing winds we already have a considerable amount of noise to contend with from the A453. The increase in heavy traffic movements would only serve to make this much worse plus the amount of dust which will be created with the movement of sand.
It must also be noted the the County Councils own assessment of the sustainability and environmental impact of this site resulted in its rejection and exclusion from previous Minerals Local Plan. We believe that nothing has changed in this regard since then and this site should again be rejected.