I am writing to confirm I wish to object very strongly to the above application.
I would like to point out that the County Councils own Sustainability Assessment illustrates that this site would be the third most damaging in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term. I would also like to suggest that this be examined again in more depth.
The council has no published data concerning geographical spread but in their draft minerals local plan they state that this site maintains geographical spread thereby over riding the adverse impact on sustainability.
The councils statement that the Shelford and Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified as there have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different sub-market areas.
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 is also 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 Planing Policy Framework (NPPF). The council has failed to justify any wholly exceptional reasons required by the NPPF. I think this is extremely important as the country as a whole is loosing so much of its significant green belt to redevelopment of one type or another.
I am a cyclist and use the roads and lanes around Barton on a regular basis. Further traffic, noise and air pollution in this area , which is heavily populated, would be detrimental to me being able to pursue my hobby and my love of the outdoors. The area is also used regularly by various clubs; hiking, cycling and horses. If they disappeared it would have a detrimental effect on the economy of the village, the coffee shop and butchers. We are loosing too many significant areas of countryside close to towns and it damages the recreational opportunities for people to improve their health and well being, especially for city dwellers.
Barton in Fabis is already built on a flood bank. Excavating the top surface, so close to the river Trent I feel would be dangerous to the village with the potential for flooding. The plans are to restore this iste to marshland and standing water; in other words flooding the site. The council has already identified this area at risk of flooding.
The noise pollution testing was done in one day with no variables; not comprehensive enough. This village is extremely quiet and peaceful. That would be endangered with the creation of a quarry.
Wildlife would also be greatly affected, especially nesting birds.
Any on-going projects in the county would be better served by existing or potential quarries nearer to those sites.
This site has already been rejected by the County Councils own reassessment of the sustainability and environmental impact of this site.
This site would also result in a major impact on two SSSIs- Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit close to the site and the destruction of 5 SINCs. The site is rich in bird life and other species; listed birds, breeding barn owls, corn buntings, harvest mice and grass snakes to name a few.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be immediately impact by noise and dust.
The dramatic reduction in the value of every house in the village should not be dismissed. Add to that the increase in insurance premiums due to the greater risk of flooding will cause a great amount of financial and emotional stress for all households.

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 strongly object to the proposed sand and gravel quarry. The county council have on previous occasions rejected this site as part of its previous drafts for environmental and other reasons.
The effect that it would have on the site and surrounding areas would be devastating on all the wildlife that thrive in the area not to mention its beautiful surroundings of natural beauty which is used not only by myself as a regular dog walker but by many more hundreds of people including horse riders, cyclists, runners, bird watchers, family's enjoying safe and healthy walks, after all the government keep telling us as a nation we all need more exercise and fresh air, good for the body and wellbeing. Many family's walk the bridal paths and surrounding fields at weekends and school holidays and have done for many years as I did with my family as a child and with my own children. As a child I lived on Clifton Estate and Barton in Fabis and Clifton village were our only areas of countryside, and where we could escape to for walks, playing, watching nature and enjoying the beautiful landscape. Putting a quarry there would be a dam right shame if it was allowed to go ahead. My daughter rides her horse there too on a daily basis and to close the opposed bridal paths not only for riders and the general public would restrict access to Barton in Fabis and beyond.
I live on Barton Green we not only have traffic noise from the A453 but are also fighting against plans for land at the side of our property to be built on, with the opposed plans are for around 280 new homes. Alongside of these are the building of 3000 new homes between Clifton and Gotham. How an earth would our area cope with the impact of noise, dust and heavy traffic. The opposed quarry is not a short term project so would have long term damage not only to wildlife but the loss of important leisure area which include the peace and tranquillity for well being also use for walking, horse riding, bird watching, fishing but also its an area for flooding so plans to restore it into marshland would surley have devastating consequences not to mention safety issues of deep ponds and heavy machinery close to bridal paths and footpaths is just asking for an accident waiting to happen. I am sure that with the noise, dust and heavy vehicle traffic the impact on the surrounding areas will be major as well as affecting house prices too. The A453 has not long been finished after long disrupting improvements to free up the traffic, so to then have upto 100 slow moving lorries back and forth would just cause more traffic problems yet again. Traffic coming from Green Street onto Mill Hill roundabout is an accident waiting to happen with traffic speeding upto the roundabout along the A453 from the right. The entrance for the quarry would mean upto 57 lorries in and out would be very dangerous. The idea of the quarry is a dam right shamble.

Sirs,

I would like to object to the proposal in the Minerals Local Plan to develop site MP2s, Mill Hill near Barton Fabis.

The proposal to develop MP2s is adjacent to the River Trent and on the opposite bank to Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI. Your own Policy DM4 says that proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that they will not give rise to any significant adverse effect on sites of SSSI.

I am a regular visitor to Attenbrough Reserve and enjoy watching the bird life and walking the paths and tracks around the site. It is one of the best sites for watching birds closest to my home. Attenborough is lovely and peaceful away from the visitor centre and the cries and calls of the birds are a real pleasure. The site is rich in bird life and other species and significant numbers of red and amber-listed birds use the site as feeding grounds and breeding.

I strongly contend that the development of MP2s will have exactly those significant adverse effects. The site will be operating for 11 hours a day and 6 days a week giving rise to high levels of noise, dust and other air pollution, additional traffic and will have a strong visual impact on the surrounding area. All impacts acknowledged in your Minerals Local Plan.

The workings and subsequent restoration of the site will last for up to 25 years during which time there will be significant disruption to the amenity of Attenborough Reserve and to the birds and other animals that enjoy its habitat. The peace and tranquillity of the area will be destroyed for both human and avian inhabitants and visitors.

In conclusion, once again, I strongly object to the proposal to develop Mill Hill, Barton Fabis

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
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.

Object to policy MP2 sand and gravel provision and inclusion of site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
Barton/ Mill Hill site evaluated as 3rd most environmentally damaging site in the long term of all the proposed sites according to county councils own sustainability Assessment from noise disturbance on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI and impact on the water quality of Holme Pit SSSI. The site also contains 5 LWS amber listed bird species use this area for feeding and breeding.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
We are in a green belt area and someone needs to stand up for the beautiful area that is the first bit of land from Nottingham that is peaceful and everyone needs this area in this day and age.
Brandshill and Clifton Woods are designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the NPPF.
You have said there will be no noise but I was born here and Attenborough when they started doing that 50 years ago there was banging and bell noise all day for years & dust. You are only a short distance from our village and noise travels down a valley so when you start (I hope not) we will have diggers backing with orange lights, beeping continuous dumper truck which the diggers will drop the stone into biog noise again & orange light beeping when backing & how many of them will be a lot. Then Conveyor belt so the dumper will drop the stone more noise * beeping + conveyor. Belt will make a noise going up the hill to drop into something + all the lorries backing and stone being dropped into the lorries all this travels down a valley. We live here we know.
Then all the lorries onto the A453. 100 & more a day what are you thinking to put us through and spoil our and many people visit area. We have people coming walkers, horse riders, fishermen Bird watching/photography and may more to this area.
Our area is rich in history with remains from roman period. Iron and bronze age documented in the area.
This area will lose the peace and tranquillity we all live busy lives and need these spaces for people to find peace from a busy working week.
Council has failed to follow its own policy aim to prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge by not selecting Shelford where 40% of minerals would be transported by barge - shame on you all.

Re: OBJECT TO PLOICY M2 SAND AND GRAVEL PROVISION AND INCLUSION OF STATE MP2S MILL HILL NR BARTON IN FABIS

Dear Sir or Madam,

It is with disappointment that I see this proposed application for the gravel quarry AGAIN a year later. I do not understand why the repeatedly proposing this scheme should be even considered. There are many reasons not to create the quarry as such I OBJECT to this proposal.

The environmental impact would be catastrophic. I walk my dog on the footpath through the proposed route. The wildlife is considerable. The birds from the adjacent Attenborough nature reserve are on both sides of the river and I cannot imagine the impact this would have to both. I frequently see the buzzards on my walks around barton and the turle dove is what many an ornithologist comes to photograph in Barton village. A very rare bird by all account.

The walkers and cyclist that use this path, as it is an area of natural beauty would be tragic.

Personally, my house would be devalued considerably - who is going to reimburse me for this loss. The increase in insurance thanks to increased flood risk. Would the council pay this? It is difficult enough trying to obtain home insurance.

The dust would be considerable, environmental health are called out to prevent these issues on short-term demolition projects. How are the going to handle this 24 /7? My daughter has asthma and this proposed quarry would cause problems, there is a health consideration here.

The health and safety considerations of having a quarry adjacent to two residential areas cannot be ignored, not only noise, dust, transport, COSHH but the dangers on this site for years.

Barton is a quiet village, one of the reasons I moved here! To have the continual noise of the quarry would impact life style and the wildlife. Airports have to comply to meet the requirements of the Environmental Noise Directive and the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006. How can this be managed and how are residents going to be compensated? We would not be able to open our window sin the summer when it is hot due to the noise and dust - (this would impact on my daughters asthma and the comfort of all residents during the heat. In addition, in the summer we would not be able to sit in our gardens!

The light pollution would impact the village, but also to the ecosystems and wildlife, in particular the birds. The Environmental Protection Agency says most electricity used for lighting is produced with coal and oil. Which evidently impacts on any environment strategy and carbon management plan. All new builds have to consider this why not this company?

The fields around Barton flood to some extent already. I experienced falling in a flooded ditch up to my neck when I first arrived. The flood risk the quarry would bring and the safety issues to individuals, particularly children, is worrying not only from flooding but with the quarry machinery.

The impact on travel would be a problem. The new island is congested at peak times now, trying to access the village is dangerous thanks to traffic not stopping at the Millhill roundabout to Barton in Fabis / Thrumpton. The road are already in a poor condition thanks to neglect and the un -updated satellite navigation systems sending lorry's down Green Street.

The removal of the footpath and access for fisherman, cyclists, horse riders and walkers would impact the local economy and the ambience of the village. We are frequently loosing villagers around Nottinghamshire to development. Having spent the week with American visitors who come to see our charming countryside and experience village life, what will they have to come to see if we look like everywhere else.

I work in construction, I am well aware of the need for building materials. We are not short of gravel nor sand. It is hardcore and disposing of excess soil I have spent trying to sort out for a site in Ruddington.

There is only one logical solution. DECLINE / OBJECT



KIND REGARDS

Re: Objection to Policy MP2 Sand & Gravel Provision and inclusion of Site 'MP2's Mill Hill Near Barton in Fabis

To whom it may concern:

I would like you to accept this letter as my objection against the above application / development due to the devastating environmental impact and the safety relating to increased traffic around the local road network.

I currently work in the transport industry and I am fully aware of the impact on the local community that running 120 commercial vehicles along the local road network will cause, the figure given by the local council does not take into account the support vehicles or staff cars and is NOT a true refection of the TRUE traffic impact.I currently have to run the gauntlet so to speak when entering the A453 from the village access road GREEN STREET, I have a class 1 LGV licence and wound love to see you try to drive a fully loaded aggrigate truck onto the A453 at anytime not just rush hour without causing a major disruption to the traffic flow.

I am really concerned about the safety that our children who currently play in and around the village including in the local woodland and nature reserve.

When I attended the village hall meeting/consultation with the council officials I was frankly appailed at the lack of support for the village, it seems that our views and opinions will be push by the wayside as was the case when the A453 was objected too it.

We were told by the council officials that in some villages were mining had already taken place that this had a positive impact on the village, however when asked about the villages no names could be given or supporting evidence to back up their claims.

Dear Sir/Madam
Reference: Draft Minerals plan.Sand and Gravel Provision Site MO2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis.

I write to advise you that I wish to OBJECT to the inclusion of the above site in the new Minerals Plan.
The County Councils own Sustainabilty Assessment shows that this site is the most damaging of all the sites in the operational phase
and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.

The Draft Minerals 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 overriding the adverse impact on Sustainabilty. However, the council has stated that there is
No published data related to geographical spread.

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

The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to "prioritize 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 sites of special scientific interest, Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme pit, which are close
to the site and on five 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
tranquility 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 as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

I should be pleased to receive an acknowledgment of the objection and be advised of the eventual outcome of your Consultation.

Consultation on Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan:
Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to OBJECT to the above site for the reasons listed below as well as the following:
I have lived in the small village of Thrumpton for a year and a half now, and very fondly call it home, having also got married here last weekend and sharing our beautiful village with family and friends, all of whom fell in love with its charms. I cannot help but feel that the proposal above will significantly impact upon this beautiful area in which we live. Already being loomed over by the coal power station on one side, the above proposal would surround the village with further noise, light and air pollution which can only be detrimental.
This is an area of green belt land, one of few remaining and I find it deeply upsetting that there are plans to disrupt this area of natural beauty with the development proposed, not only affecting people living in the surrounding areas but also significantly impacting on the wildlife. To take a walk out of the village without meeting industry or roads at present takes you on a route through Barton in Fabis, this proposal would mean there is no route unspoiled if wishing to take a walk out of the village. These are not walking routes used only by local residents but also by people from surrounding towns and villages who come to enjoy the peace and beauty of the countryside which if destroyed would mean cars heading further afield in search of green space.
The roads in particular Barton Lane are already in a state of disrepair and the infrastructure to cope with large vehicles simply does not exist.
As a doctor I am fully aware of the impact that noise, light and air pollution can have on not only physical but also mental wellbeing of the nearby residents, and I feel that the proposal by no means takes this into account and will have significant repercussions in the years to come. Disruption of sleep can lead to significant health problems, those of us working night shifts will struggle to sleep in the day because of the noise and pollution created but I am under no illusion that noise will stop at night where light pollution will also have a significant impact. With resources in the NHS already limited I feel it would be extremely irresponsible for the council to embark with this proposal without considering the healthcare implications this proposal will bring. Lack of green space is detrimental to health and to take this away from the local population I feel is indefensible.
* The Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the third most damaging in the long term.
* The Council has stated that "there is no published data related to geographical spread". Therefore, the Plan is 'unsound' as the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of "maintaining a geographical spread" and therefore overriding the adverse impact on sustainability.
* There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The 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 Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five 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 - providing significant evidence of the negative impact on wildlife and the environment.
* 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 from the site itself and from the extensive lorry movements.
* 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, cycling, 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 residents.

Dear Sir/Madam,


Ref: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis'
I am writing to OBJECT to the above site on the following grounds:

There is currently no clear justification for the site.
- this site has previously been rejected by the county council as part of the previous draft of the MLP for reasons including the environmental impact of the proposed new site.
- After speaking to a representative of the Council at the presentation in the village hall, I am still not clear as to why a larger site (for example the site at Shelford) could not be used. It was claimed that a smaller site is needed as the as the sand and gravel extraction needs are lower than first thought. In my opinion this is a totally flawed reason for prioritising a more environmentally damaging site. There have been no projections for sand and gravel extraction in the different submarket areas. Choosing a smaller site does not allow for any future increase in demand and could lead to the destruction of an additional site if the Barton site proves to be too small. I cannot understand why a smaller portion of a larger site cannot be quarried and the Council representative could not give me a sensible answer for this.
- At the meeting the Council representative showed me a diagram of the existing quarry sites, from which the County Council want a geographical spread. To me this did not indicate that Barton was a sufficient distance from the other proposed sites to justify a geographical spread of sites.
- Irrespective of the above, the Council have indicated that there is no published data related to the geographical spread and therefore this analysis and justification is fundamentally flawed.
- the Council has FAILED to follow its own policy aim to "prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge". The Shelford site would allow 40% of minerals to be transported by barge.
- I am totally unable to understand why the most environmentally damaging site has been prioritised by the Council. I do not believe it to be a coincidence that a senior member of the County Council has lived in Shelford.


DAMAGE TO THE SITE
Impact on heritage assets
- quarrying the site would destroy the historical ridge and furrow field patterns that are known to date back to the middle ages.
- there would be an adverse impact on Clifton Hall and the Clifton Village Conservation area.
-remains from the Roman period and the Iron and Bronze ages have been discovered in the area and quarrying would destroy these.

Environmental impact
- the County Council's independent Sustainability Assessment assessed this site as being the 3rd most environmentally damaging site of those proposed.
- there will be a significant detrimental effect on the Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit. The nature reserve is an SSSI and contains 5 SINCs. One of the SINCs would be totally destroyed.
-the proposed site is particularly important for bird life. The site is used for feeding and breeding by endangered birds, 24 species of which are on the red list and 22 species are on the amber list. Specifically Barn Owls and Corn Buntings are known to breed here. The site is of county important for wintering birds.
- The site is of county importance for invertebrates as endangered species have been found there, including the necklace ground beetle, which has been found in potentially sizeable populations. Grass snakes and harvest mice are present at this site.
- this site is a biodiversity action plan habitat, habitats that are rapidly becoming scarce in the county.

Noise and village environment
- it will be impossible to mitigate the effect of noise and dust on the village and quarry operations will therefore have a significantly negative impact on an otherwise tranquil rural location that is enjoyed by not just villages but by the wider community including numerous bird watches, cyclists, walkers, horse riders, photographers and other visitors. The site will not be restored to it's current condition for another 25 years. The loss of this area of countryside will have a far reaching effect and will reduce recreational opportunities for many people.
- the loss of a key visual amenity will have a significant detrimental effect.
- dust is likely to travel from the quarry site into the village, thus reducing the air quality. This is of particular concern for the many elderly and very young members of the village.
- the quarry site would be a safety concern for the many parents of young children in the village. - the deep water, increased traffic and heavy machinery close to the bridleway and footpath pose a significant danger to children. I am personally concerned for the safety of my young daughter if the plans are approved.

Traffic
- the traffic at the A453 roundabout by Fox Covert Lane already poses a significant risk to villagers wishing to travel out of this village. Cars from the A453 travel at great speed without slowing for the roundabout and I personally have narrowly avoided being hit on numerous occasions. One particular occasion would likely have been a fatal collision due to the speed of the oncoming car and caused me and another car to have to come to a halt in the middle of the roundabout to avoid a collision. Adding further traffic to this roundabout can only increase the likelihood of accidents and the heavy industrial nature of the additional traffic would likely worsen the outcome of any collisions.
- I am a keen cyclist and use Green Street for my commute. The introduction of industrial traffic would make this a very dangerous road to cycle on and I would feel that I would no longer be able to use the route for cycling and would therefore have to give up cycling as part of my commute. I have spoken to other cyclists who feel the same.

Flooding
- it is already very difficult for villages to get home insurance that covers the risk of flooding. A quarry would adversely affect flood risk in the area and the Council Sustainability Appraisal has identified the potential flood risk as "very negative".
Local economy
- local businesses such as Dovecote Farm shop and Dovecote coffee shop would suffer as bridleways/footpaths that currently cross the site would need to be diverted. This and the loss of the wildlife and tranquil environment in the village would reduce passing trade from cyclists, walkers and horse riders.
- for the reasons listed in this objection, house prices and the desirability of houses in the village is likely to be affected. This, in addition to a likely increase in home insurance premiums (due to increased flood risk) is adding to the financial impact on villagers.

Safety
- I have a 1 year old daughter and another child due soon. I deeply concerned about the safety threat that this quarry poses. In particular, the heavy machinery in close proximity to footpaths that we regularly use and the deep water ponds.

Hi, would like to object ti the quarry,i metal detect that area and know for a fact there are roman artefacts and stone age artefacts in the ground and a quarry would be detrimental to the history of the area not to mention the wildlife

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

I write to strongly object to the proposal relating to Sand and Gravel Provision 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
The scheme proposed in The Draft Minerals Local Plan would cause such devastation to our beautiful environment. We all have responsibility to protect preserve and nurture our beautiful landscape and as key decision makers you are entrusted to make the right decision for the health and well being of the local community, all the diverse species of wildlife which depend on this beautiful environment.
As a local resident I have benefitted from my frequent walks along this site, I have recently suffered with stress pertaining to a demanding job. The beautiful tranquillity and peace of this site has been a lifeline to me, as I walk listening and seeing all the beautiful varieties of birds, butterflies and insects, all what nature provides I am transformed and have peace of mind feeling truly blessed to enjoy my lovely environment.
Please conserve this area I urge you, the area has such importance to our endangered species, to us all that use it, to life.
I trust that you will demonstrate that you have listened to my voice opposed to ur draft plan and acknowledge the priceless value this site has on so many levels to so many.

With regards

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed MP2S Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis quarry site.

OBJECT - Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabi

Dear Sir/Madam

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

The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have neem designated as Ancient Woodland.

The Council has failed to follow its own policy 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 allocation of such a large development within the area is not sustainable considering other sufficient developments forthcoming including Fairham Pastures (3000+ housing, businesses and schools). Having such a large INDUSTRIAL development within a short radius of this development and the estate that already exists will have a major impact on a significant amount of people.

There have been no projections of sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas so the addition of a new site can also not be justified on grounds of environmental, physical and human mental wellbeing.

Yours Sincerely

To whom it may concern

I would like to object to the sand and quarry provision proposed for Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis. I am greatly concerned about the natural habitats that will be destroyed as a result of this planned provision.

OBJECT to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provisions inclusion of Site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton-in-Fabis.

OBJECT


Dear Sir / Madam

I strongly OBJECT to the proposed sand and gravel quarrying at this site, on the grounds that it would be extremely detrimental to a fascinating and unique wildlife environment.

The site proposed sits in a delightful and unique position nestled as it is between the steep wooded bank of Brands Wood and the River Trent and wetland environment of Attenborough Nature Reserve.
It is a haven for wildlife. Living on the opposite side of the river to Attenborough Nature Reserve, I witness daily how essential the pastureland, marshland and arable fields on this side of the river and over to Brands Wood are to the abundant wildlife that uses the reserve. Loss of this rich habitat, and the inevitable disruption caused, would have a devastating effect not only on the wildfowl using Attenborough, but on the many other species of birds and wildlife, including raptors and owls, some rare, that depend on this rich pastureland and marshes between the banks of the River Trent and the woods of Brands Hill.

It should also be noted that the proposed site acts as a lung to Nottingham itself, an essential part of a green corridor that stretches north into the heart of the city, allowing residents not only from Barton, but from Clifton, Attenborough, Beeston, Silverdale and beyond to experience and enjoy the quiet yet spectacular scenery and its resident wildlife. it is its environmental contrast to the Attenborough Reserve and Brands Wood that makes it so valuable both to the diversity of flora and fauna experienced, but also as a marvellous leisure amenity to the built up urban environment of Nottingham and its suburbs. I myself use the bridleway into Nottingham to cycle to work, and walk the footpaths on a regular basis, so I appreciate, alongside many others, the value of this rural idyll so close to the city.

The local area has surely seen enough gravel extraction in recent years, and there must be far less sensitive sites that could be used than this one. With HS2 coming and the new mass housing scheme extension to Clifton that is being proposed, environmental pressure on the area will be intense, and such a precious jewel as this should be preserved and protected for future generations.

I also find it rather disingenuous that all the previous objections made about the planning application ES:3712 for this site do not naturally get taken into account for the Mineral Plan consideration, as they are obviously still totally relevant.

Yours sincerely

Dear Sir / Madam,

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

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

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

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

The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.

The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) -Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWSs ((Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.

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

The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any "wholly exceptional reasons" required by the NPPF.

The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust. There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

MP2 sand and gravel provision and inclusion of site MPSs Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis

Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above application on the grounds that there is
no current requirement for additional quarry sites and the adverse environmental impact of this
proposal. The Barton/ Mill Hill site has been evaluated as the third most environmentally damaging site in the long term of all those proposed according to the County Council's own sustainability Assessment.
As a resident of Barton in Fabis and a keen bird watcher I am concerned at the impact the proposed quarry will have on our local wildlife.
The grass land habitat is home to an amazing array of bird and mammals. I have seen Barn and Tawny owls hunting over the fields, along with Kestrels, Buzzards and even a Honey Buzzard. The area also has several flash sites which flood regularly. These flashes attract Waders and over the years 17 different types of Waders have been seen here. This is a totally different habitat to Attenborough and Holme Pit and I believe it is vital we preserve it instead of losing it forever.
I am concerned that the full impact of the current application has not been fully considered. As someone who has actively chosen to live in a quiet rural location I feel this peace is under threat. I am not aware of the impact on resident's emotional and physical health having been considered. The site would result in a 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. Clifton Woods will be negatively impacted, and these are designated as Ancient Woodland.
In terms of the impact on physical health the site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust. There is increasing evidence that environmental noise above a certain level can have a negative influence on your health. These effects can be physical, mental and possibly even disrupt children's learning. Airborne dust presents serious risks for human health.
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 up to 25 years.
Yours sincerely,

Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Dear Sirs,

I writing to advise that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.

I cite the following reasons:
* The Barton site has been evaluated as the 3rd most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county councils own sustainability assessment
* The site would result in major impact on two SSSI's - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme pit which are close to the site
* A number of credible environmental associations/partners have already objected to the application which is evidence of the damage this site could cause (RSPB, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, Ramblers association etc.
* The site is also situated in the Green Belt
From a personal point of view:
* The site will have an adverse impact on the setting of Clifton Hall and Clifton Village Conservation Area
* I regularly use the area to walk my dog - to and from Barton. This habitat will be lost for up to 25 years - potentially a third of my life!!
* The site will be extremely noisy creating dust and other nuisances which will be exacerbated by the proposed operation times - 6 days a week for 11 hours a day
I also consider that:
* The draft minerals local plan is unsound - as the council have sound to justify the inclusion of the site of the basis of maintaining geographical spread - over riding the adverse impact on sustainability. Whilst at the same time the council has said that there is no published data related to geographical spread
* The council has also failed to follow its own policy which is to prioritise site with potential for transforming gravel by barge - it has not yet included site which use this mode of transport.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I object to the above Sand and Gravel Provision 'MP2S Mill Hill near Barton-in-Fabis and consider that this should not be permitted to go ahead, because of the impact upon the the ecology and natural and historical landscape.

The footpath which runs between Clifton and Barton in Fabis over the fields will be closed for the duration of the works as this falls within the centre of the extraction site. The road to be built up Brandshill Grassland will cross the Bridleway between Clifton and Barton in Fabis causing disruption. The beautiful views, and peacefulness and tranquillity of this bridleway will also be destroyed as this bridleway is right next to the extraction site and the processing plant. This will affect a variety of usergroups including, Walkers, Cyclists, and Horseriders.
It will destroy the peace and tranquility of the area as the site will be operating six days a week for 11 hours a day. This noise may be heard from Barton in Fabis and Clifton - particularly Barton Green, Noble Road where several addresses have been noted as being 'noise sensitive'.
Risk of dust blowing from the extraction site and processing plant towards Barton in Fabis and Clifton - particularly Barton Green, Noble Road and Lark Hill which will particularly affect those with asthma and other lung related diseases.


The Application site, and its immediate surroundings contain a mixture of highly valuable habitat and in some areas, historic features and all these are important both Nationally, regionally and at a county level. Barton site evaluated as the most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county by County Council's own Sustainability Assessment. Other potential sites are less damaging. The habitat on the Barton site also supports a diverse range of UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan Flora and Fauna. 31 Nationally Important UK Biodiversity Action Plan species (including birds) which could be negatively impacted upon along with major impacts to both breeding and wintering birds. This proposal would devastate 79 hectares (200 acres) of prime wildlife habitat.

As a regular user of Attenborough Nature Reserve and visitor to the above area, to watch and photograph wildlife, it is clear to me that the proposed works will have a seriously destructive and detrimental effect both on wildlife local to the area in question in this prime habitat, likewise to Attenborough NR SSSI, which is significantly dependent upon this area opposite the reserve which does not exist in isolation, but functions in the wider context of the regional environment. Likewise the Clifton Woods and Holme Pit NR and SSSI which will also be severely affected by this development.

I submit to you that there are far less damaging sites that may be sourced for gravel extraction and that you should exploit these if you must, rather than this much valued, loved, recreationally, ecologically and environmentally significant site.

Yours faithfully,

OBJECTION TO SAND AND GRAVEL PROVISION PROPOSAL MP2S MILL HILLNR BARTON IN FABIS


I appreciate that sand and gravel need to be extracted but feel this site is not suitable for several reasons:

1. It borders an important SSSI (The Attenborough Reserve) and the whole area is rich in wildlife and, in particular, birds. This includes 24 red and 22 amber listed species. Disturbance and destruction of this habitat will endanger these species further.

2. The Area is a populär one for walkers(especially those with dogs),cyclists, anglers, bird watchers, photographers and horse riders. The County and City Council's Officers responded to the application last September stating that the bridle path across the site is well used by the walkers, riders and cyclists. They stated that they had major concerns about safety issues for horse riders regarding the riders passing over the conveyor via a ramp near Burrows Farm. These concerns related to ground vibrations and noise particularly as horses are more sensitive to feeling vibration and being "spooked" by the noise and the sight of the conveyor working. Is injury and or death of a rider a risk worth taking?

3. The lorries and machinery would cause road congestion and create dirt and dust spoiling the lives of the lives of those near these routes. The dust could also aggravate those with breathing conditions.

4. The area is rich in history. Both Bronze Age and Roman archeological remains have been found. A ridge and furrow system can be found.
I hope you will consider all,these points and not include Mill Hill in the final plan.

Dear sirs,

I would like to object to MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis sand and gravel provision.

If it goes ahead the quarry will destroy 200 acres of wildlife habitat and feeding grounds for Attenborough Nature Reserve, ancient woodlands and spoil local natural landscape enjoyed by walkers, fishermen, cyclists and horseriders alike.
If that's not enough, it will create heavy noise and dust across Clifton, Barton in Fabis areas and has the potential for local flooding.
As a cyclist and nature lover I am seriously concerned about the impact on Attenborough Nature Reserve, with planned work continuing for approx 15-25 years. We regularly enjoy cycling in the area and have a friend who is a local resident. We are concerned about the high levels of dust and noise and local residents health may be impacted by this. Please consider my objection.

To whom it may concern

We need to object the building of the quarry . I enjoy visiting the beautiful green belt land in nottingham with my children. The noise and dust will impact us as well as spoiling the countryside.

OBJECTION to Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision Site and inclusion of 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.
The County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site (MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis) 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 on sustainability. However, the Council has stated, "there is no published data related to geographical spread".
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big therefore 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 SSSls (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWSs (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health 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. There will be high levels of dust and noise adjacent to a highly populated area 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.
Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a resident of Clifton Village for over 18 years, and with the family home still there for over 40 years, I would like to OBJECT to the site - Sand and Gravel Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'.

I am very concerned by the development of this site for a variety of reasons:
- dust from heavy excavation machinery with 114 lorry movements per day
- noise and dust with resultant health issues from operations 7am - 6pm, 6 days per week, with dewatering pumps operating 24/7
- the effect on 79 hectares of wildlife habitats / agricultural land lost in the Green Belt for up to 25 years
- the impact on Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit SSSIs and 5 local Wildlife Site (Holme Pitt was the site for my GCSE nature project several years ago)
- loss of important leisure for the village and surrounding areas (that area is a common place for our family to take walks)
- impact on wildlife with 24 Red and 22 Amber listed species
- impact on the landscape and Ancient Woodlands at Brandshill / Clifton Woods

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

Why would anyone in their right mind want to damage the environment around this area when everyone knows that it is a valuable site for feeding and breeding birds. Is not the whole area turning into a building site with the East Midlands airport chaos a prime example?

East Leake is now a town and not far from being united with Clifton through the steady building of numerous housing estates. The whole area is becoming a prime building site for mass housing and has destroyed beautiful countryside in its wake.

We have lived in a village, East Leake, for many years and it is a prime example of destruction on a grand scale. Now it seems you have your mind set on destroying another beautiful area near Barton in Fabis.

Soon we will have no lovely fields left to visit and in its place mass housing, gravel pits and planes every 20 seconds. Is there no peace or tranquility left for us to enjoy in our area?

The grounds from which I view the pending erasure of the In-Fabis landscape northwards are: the 44 years, of which I have daily run the loop - Clifton Village to Barton, along the bridleway, past Burrows Farm up top, below Brandshill Wood, turn at Barton's Chestnut Lane; and back along the river to the weir. That runway became for me - at 75 years - degraded to a walkway: as ever, daily, in all seasons and all weathers; in early mornings or evenings, in sunshine, in rain, in snow and when the flood waters speeded 'cross the fields.

I am saying that - for that reason - comes to me despair and outrage at the coming of an unprecedented Machine-Dinosaurs-Age to the haven of Barton Valley, where I, for many years, found a quiet that calmed the hurley-burley of the working day. Now: Brontosaw-us- bulldozers and Tyrannosaurus­ diggers will grind to gravel what made my life so good, so often, after work.
What the giant Brontosaw-es and Tyrannosaurs will dig out is - first, History, a history the eyes can see, where they can see it all times of the year, not history as you get in school, but for your eyes. You see - the insight(s) come, not everyday, but keep coming - the contours of the ox-drawn plough-funows, the elting-moulds and eddings - of Barton-in-fa bis , which those with eyes to see can see embedded in the rich-bean-growth-water-table. And, the precious solitude and peace and quiet of the bridleway through trees, bird flight, bird song, the bending river, the river sounds, the waterfowl, the herons, crested grebes, the geese, the field water-ponds clumped with dense willow and alder: all this quiet with trees and birdsong and rushing-water song is there, because the giant body of Brandshill and its soundproof woods shuts out the dual-carriage-A453's speeding-lorries-and-cars' industrial barrage.
You will respond by marginalizing me as - extraordinaire - someone marching the valley every day of every year. However, I have learned otherwise.....Many by-passers, whom I share time-of-day with and exchange brief words, have customarily nodded assent to what I see as charms along the way and speak of their own things-seen-and-heard on the day or yesterday or week before. Therefore, a sense has built up in me over the years, that most of those, who run and walk, horse ride and bike the way I go, share like­ riverside and woodland experiences with me. Those myriad brief exchanges with others.. ..going along the way....have convinced me, cumulatively, that what I get out of the Batton valley is human-being experience; not special and unique to me.
The point I'm making is that the idiom of the planning rationale; the reasoning - for and against planning projects - is ever a configuration of utilitarian losses and gains: viz. noise and dust pollution; loss of trees, vegetation, landscape; loss of hugely-rich wild-life, pond-life; historical and archaeological contours, tumbled stone-remains you can't help thinking of, flood waters.... how they transform everything for weeks.

What I'm trying to say is that the idiom of the planning application discourse; the reasoning for and against planning projects is ever a dialogue where each side lists and quantifies 'things': the quantified list of things ultimately constitutes their case. That listing-and-quantifying-things mode, I would entitle, 'Utilitarian Speak'. It must have its place - I cannot disagree. But .. .. What I'm trying to prominence here is another language that tries to disclose the damage done to 'heart and soul'. to 'inner being'
' Quality of Life': quality of life in she/he, who gets to feel Brandshill Wood and Trent River, its trees, birdsong, moving waters, season-changes inside themselves.
t only-someone-with-years-of'.-knowing,--feeling - it:-feeling-it-everyday. -and
over periods of seasonal change. Yes, I concede: Not everyone has the time, makes the time for all this. BUT, what I'm trying to do is to open a window on the ' Quality of Life' factor, dimension - the nonce tag with no special meaning ( ... unless you confront the difficulty of what it .. means) that comes into use at moments of despair in our speech, when we feel it, but are lost for words to unpack what we vividly mean by it.
My polar opposite perspective - opposite to the utilitarian - is to imagine, give tentative expression to, the quality of life loss for the horse-, foot-, bike- users, dog-walkers of the valley scene. Example: the September month of, what I've learned to call - heron-parliament , heron-colloquium (my invented term) - circles of herons numbering in their thirties. All looking inward from the circle' s edge... Why?... This slight of insight and puzzle, why?... is an odd-off, ....strange thing ... of September time
gone for you... from the valley.... for ever.
That above is something more than 'herons'. I am saying that everything worth while - that 'touches the human spirit' - in the valley - are ' things that are come and gone'. I'm saying that a myriad of wood and valley insights that are come and gone, only a poet can give expression to. But they 'give to the human spirit' in another way too..... From my experience: when people struck by sight and sounds, exchange in their way with each other, something of it gets into human being.. .leaves a mark......leaves a mark on .....being: 'being' is all I can call it. But 'talking about it with other people' does the trick of making these things 'get inside you', is all I can say. A peace-and-quiet sepulchre as Barton-in-fabis is.. .. .. . ...with trees and birds and river water and open pools on the low water table, and the so much see-able history - plough contours, ditches with the remains of small stone bridges that took days of hard labour to build - long-gone agriculture of pick-and-shovel work. Being able to make wholes of these multiple bits and pieces in the Barton-in-Fabis fields and ... imagine how the world of field work was. And press school teachers to teach a ' field history' that way, is the thing you councillors ought to work on, to change things: while the rest of the world fills evermore with concrete and machines, multi­ million pound tramways and A453 tony-thunder
I'll say again: the barrage and uproar of trucks and cars of the A453 has been kept out of the valley's peace-and-quiet by Brandshill woods. BUT... now come the Caterpillar-Tractor-Machine-Age-Dinosaurs to double the machine-barrage-roar and bottom-out all that gave human spirits life-or well being in the Brandshill-sound-proofed sepulcher, or altar of repose that is Barton-in-Fabis.
It may make sense in the utilities of gravel-money-arithmetic; but it takes away this hard­ to-put-in-word, quality-of-life thing, that from my experience and many others' experience, I've known for 47 years; and notjust 'oldies', but 'youngies' who also 'pass the time of day and learn to say how good the river and woodlands things are . .. that they've seen today ... last week .. .. last month ... on their way(s) to uni' ....
My response is, Of course NCC will sanction digging out Barton-Clifton wetland; and more, in years to come. What matters the Unintended Consequences to human being that only poets could give expression to. Your response will be (I don't know you, of course!): " 'Poets' now! Who is this guy? Doesn't this guy understand county councils face a Funding Crisis ....And he is talking "Poets''!!!!
Remember Dr Beeching ... and MoT Marples ... closing one-third of English railways and opening the way for oil automobiles and Autobahnen. The poet opposing them, then, was John Betjeman. Betjeman failed in his opposition, of comse; but at least, he saved St Pancras for us. That was the Grand Opera of Unintended-Consequences. What NCC does now is not Grand Opera; but the same opera of not seeing what the man-in-the-street or the man on the Trent Way will see and hear when, at last, the Brontosaurus Bulldozers machine-snort, -roar and barrage morning-noon-and-evening makes it .... on the Barton Fabis stage.
Over the course of my 86 years, I have written a long list of protest letters against quasi-shale-money projects. All of them - like this one - proved ineffective, waste-of-time-full ' pourings of water into sand'. Over those many years of letters, I have become aware of the potency of cohorts of professional lobbyists in Public Affairs - working astutely, deftly, meticulously, behind-the­ scene to 'get things done' for interest groups, entrepreneur groups who see Building/Excavation Planning Permissions as modern-day Gold Rushes.
We Voter Nincompoofs know nothing of the behind-the-scenes to-ings and fro-ings of lobby- ists in the labyrinth of corridors and offices of the Council House Palace of West Bridgford. Lobbyists are not the courtiers of the old time palaces; but at Regional Meetings I've attended, I've learned to recognise the shiney.suits :which Stand them out and the Men-among- them-and-the- respect that-those-who know­ them show them.
You can see that I am a Know-Nothing Voter Nincompoof, who walks to and from Barton everyday: Barton Way, a haven of moving, rippling water courses, of birdsong and dense trees: a Tranquil Quiet and Peace of Mind Corridor: a sacred four miles, there and back from Fabis Barton. I know that this protest-letter like all the rest I've written will hit the bin dust of West Bridgford.
My last words are: Lobby Science has developed over 50 yrs; reducing County Council DEMOCRACY to 'Let 'em .... SUCK a CONSULTATION-DUMMY. Be assured that this will be the last consultation­ dummy I will suck, when the bad news of Sand & Gravel Plan: Permission Given drops through the door. This is no worthless protest-letter but my memories of, and thanks to, a place of solitude and quiet; before the machine-mad-din of Brontosaurus Bulldozers took its place in the world.


Thank You, Councillor(s), for All You Do.


(Dr) Geoff Matthews

Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'

Dear Sirs,

I writing to advise that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.

There are a number of factors I wish to be taken into account:
* The Barton site has been evaluated as the 3rd most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the county councils own sustainability assessment
* The site would result in major impact on two SSSI's - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme pit which are close to the site
* A number of credible environmental associations/partners have already objected to the application which is evidence of the damage this site could cause (RSPB, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, Ramblers association etc.
* The site is also situated in the Green Belt
From a personal point of view:
* The site will have an adverse impact on the setting of Clifton Hall and Clifton Village Conservation Area. The impact is exacerbated when you factor in the additional impact on two Grade 1 listed buildings in close proximity - Clifton Hall and St Marys Church
* I regularly use the bridleways and foot paths in the area & I am incredibly concerned that the lack of tranquillity will detract on my enjoyment of the area - needed to maintain my personal wellbeing. I'm concerned that I'll have to travel further afield - increasing pollution in Nottinghamshire - to obtain the same level of exercise/mindfulness
* The site will be extremely noisy creating dust and other nuisances which again will be exacerbated by the proposed operation times - 6 days a week for 11 hours a day
I also consider that:
* The draft minerals local plan is unsound - as the council have sound to justify the inclusion of the site of the basis of maintaining geographical spread - over riding the adverse impact on sustainability. Whilst at the same time the council has said that there is no published data related to geographical spread
* The council has also failed to follow its own policy which is to prioritise site with potential for transforming gravel by barge - it has not yet included site which use this mode of transport.

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

Dear sir/madam

I am writing to confirm that i wish to object to the MP2 mill hill site being included in the draft minerals local plan due to the following reasons:

1. The draft minerals local plan is unsound as the council has sought to justify including Mill Hill site based on 'geographic spread'. Despite the council stating that "there is no published data related to geographical spread". Therefore their analysis and proposal for geographic spread is flawed and should not be used to justify site allocation.
2. This stance now over rides the Councils policy aim to "prioritise sites witrh potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not including other sites that can transport 40% of minerals by barge.
3. The Councils own "Sustainability Assessment" clearly shows that a quarry at Mill Hill is the most damaging of all the sites in the operation phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
4. The mill Hill site is in the green belt, and adjacent to designated ancient woodland which are subject to special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework
5. A quarry at Mill Hill would directly impact on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest and five Local Wildlife Sites, one of which would be destroyed all together.
6. Objections have already been lodged by Natural England, RSPB, Nottingham Wildlife Trust and Ramblers association
7. A quarry located so close to the village would mean loss of the peace and tranquility of the village and close the bridle way that i regularly go running on through Clifton Woods
8. I am also concerned how the noise and dust from quarry operations will affect the village and my health.

Yours sincerely.