Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to strongly object to the site of sand and gravel MP2 near Barton in Fabis.

In my view the Draft Minerals Local Plan is Unsound, 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. The council have also stated that NO published data for this geographical spread can be shown.

The Sustainability Assessment completed by the Country Council show this to be the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the third most damaging over a period of time.

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

I strongly feel that the council have 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.

Public Heath England, RSPB, CPRE, Rambles and Nottingham Wildlife Trust have already strongly objected to a planning application for MP2 Sand and Gravel.

The site is GREEN BELT, Clifton woods and Brandshill adjacent to the site have been designated as Ancient Woodland, which has special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework.

For this site to proceed it would have a major impact on quality of life. There would be high levels of dust and noise next to a highly populated area. The area is used extensively by horse riders, walkers, for fishing and bird watching. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of such a large city of Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well being of the City.

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

To whom it may concern,

I would like to submit an objection to the proposed development of the site between Clifton and Barton in Fabis for extraction of aggregates.

The site is of natural and historic importance. It is an area of bountiful wildlife both on the proposed site and also with effect to the wildlife in Attenborough Nature Reserve. Birds are unaware of the boundary of the river Trent and settle in the area of the site proposed. The woodland and pastures between Clifton and Barton are an important area for wildlife, horse riders, cyclists, bird watchers and walkers.
It would be an atrocity to mar this landscape. The noise, dust and transportation would have an enormous impact on all the above and also the quality of life to the residents living in this area.

I adhere and full-heartedly agree with the standard letter pasted in below.

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.
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 Policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and inclusion of site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'
This is the third objection I have submitted on the allocation of the Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site which quiet frankly is approaching ridiculous.
To begin with, I find the recent scrapping of the well thought out previous MLP, already painstakingly researched, both unnecessary and a waste of public money. A individual might think that other motives and interests have prompted this action. I think further public scrutiny of this whole business is needed.
There is no evidence for sand and gravel demand in the different sub-market areas and the County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big I yet again find to be ridiculous and ask "why have these sites not been included?". By omitting these two sites the policy aim of the Council to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" is non-existent.
To continue, the Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the County Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site on the basis of "maintaining a geographical spread" and therefore over riding the adverse impact on sustainability.
This is again ridiculous, as the County Council, by it's own admission, stated that "there is no independent published data related to geographical spread".
The County Council has shown by it's independent 'Sustainability Assessment' that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the initial phase and number 3 most damaging overall.
Both Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, are designated as Ancient Woodland and have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any "wholly exceptional reasons" required by the NPPF.
I also object for the following reasons:
The noise and dust pollution from the constant working machinery 11 hours a day, 6 days a week.

Building projects used to justify this application are either not due to start for several years or would be better supplied by quarries nearer to the individual build sites.

It appears this application is attempting to get around the proper process. The County Council has already rejected this site as part of the previous draft of the MLP for environmental and other reasons. Why is it being considered again with different wording?
More than 1000 individuals have already voiced their objection to virtually the exact same plan, why is it being considered again?

The effect the quarry will have on both Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away), Holme Pitt SSSI and five LWSs ((Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether. Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have all objected to a planning application for this site.

Many species of wildlife would be greatly affected due to loss of habitat. These range from birds (24 Red and 22 Amber listed bird species), grass snakes, harvest mice, bats, badgers, otters and other species that already have conservation concerns. These creatures depend on this area to provide the food they need to survive.

The size and impact of the site and the 15 year plan for it. This is a long and constant impact on the area with it taking as long again to recover.

Loss of the peaceful tranquil nature of the area which is used for walking, dog walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and nature photography. This will be a huge impact due to the working time of the site and pumps running day and night.

The footpaths and bridleways that cross the site, including The Trent Valley Way would have to be diverted or closed impacting on the area as a whole.
Contamination of the River Trent, we already see detergent foam at the overflow sluices and the weir from washing of material from what's left of Attenborough gravel workings. This has a large settling pond before it reaches the Trent, waste material from the new quarry would be dumped straight into the Trent. This would have adverse affects on all life living on and in the water and cause silt build up.

The history of the area which has remains from the Roman period and also Iron and Bronze age links documented along with the ridge and furrow field pattern from the middle ages. Although a preliminary investigation has been undertaken this has merely scratched the surface and in the words of the archaeologists themselves "means very little archaeology wise"

Adverse affect on Clifton Hall and Clifton Village conservation areas. Many people use these areas for recreation and their tranquil stroll in the woods would be shattered by the clatter of the relentless conveyor and the roar of heavy lorries and machinery.

The machinery and plant that will be working close to the bridleways and footpaths. This is a definite potential danger. Horses and dogs or even people could be suddenly alarmed and cause accidents.

Children from the surrounding area have always frequented this area for recreation. The magnetic affect of the site and deep water lagoons would be a real risk to their welfare, this I think is especially poignant with the recent death of the school child at Beeston Weir.

The total elimination of the of the original nature of the site. Even after the 25+ years needed for this site to recover it will bear no resemblance to the original pasture land and wild wooded areas it is now. Instead it will be lagoons and marsh land with the original wildlife gone for ever.
With this area being the flood plain for Nottingham and the previous, now scrapped for whatever reason, MLP expressing grave concerns about the flood risk, surely this alone should be enough to reject this proposal

Ref: 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 above site.

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

The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of "maintaining a geographic 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 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 "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites with this mode of transport.

The site would impact on two SSSIs - Attenborough Nature Reserve and the Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS one which will be destroyed altogether.

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

The site is in the Green Belt, Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, has been designated as Ancient Woodland which has special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council 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. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for health and well-being of the residents of Clifton and Barton in Fabis.


Your sincerely

Ref: 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 above site.

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

The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of "maintaining a geographic 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 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 "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not allocating any sites with this mode of transport.

The site would impact on two SSSIs - Attenborough Nature Reserve and the Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS one which will be destroyed altogether.

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

The site is in the Green Belt, Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, has been designated as Ancient Woodland which has special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council 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. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of the residents of Clifton and Barton in Fabis.

Your sincerely

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

I am writing to object to the inclusion of the above site in the Draft Minerals Local Plan for the reasons stated below:-
A. BIODIVERSITY
The site is of high ecological value and is home to a wide range of priority species, some of which are protected and one of which is endangered, (Carabus monilis). This is all covered in great detail in the outstanding planning application, yet the Council has still chosen to allocate this site in the DMLP. All these species will be subject to direct or indirect adverse impacts resulting in either their inability to survive in the area at all, or necessitating their dispersal from the area. Importantly, together with the planned urban extension on Clifton Pasture and the 300 houses near Clifton Wood, this would result in severe cumulative impacts on a number of protected and/or priority species both in and immediately adjacent to the parish of Barton in Fabis.
Nine Local Wildlife Sites will be subject to direct or indirect adverse impacts, with the complete destruction of Barton Flash and the partial destruction of both Brandshill Grassland and Brandshill Marsh. Such proposals should be considered totally unacceptable, particularly as this County does not fare well in natural capita and these are sites of County importance.
Attenborough SSSI is a National Nature Reserve and only the River Trent lies between this and the boundary of the Barton site. Therefore the many important breeding and overwintering bird species on the reserve will be subject to adverse impacts from noise and loss of feeding habitat.
Holme Pit SSSI - The water quality of this SSSI will be impacted upon through sediment from gravel operations and storage heaps being washed into the Holme Pit during periods of flood. Evidence produced by Barton in Fabis Parish Council shows this happens even during more minor flood events, which on average occur at least once a year.
The restoration plan accompanying the outstanding planning application show the vast majority of the river valley covered by two areas of deep and steep sided lagoons, and the access track and soil bunds are to be retained on the species rich Brandshill Grassland LWS. Furthermore, due to the safeguarding measures for East Midlands Airport, the extensive lagoons are not planned to be hospitable to wildlife. Therefore this, coupled with the adverse impacts on the Local Wildlife Sites and the loss of extensive areas of BAP priority habitat, such as floodplain grazing marsh, restoration of the site would result in a substantial loss to biodiversity.
Clifton Wood and Brandshill Wood have both recently been awarded ancient woodland status and are now afforded special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework. If the site is allocated, both the woodlands will be subject to adverse impacts from noise, dust, lighting and changes to hydrology and result in deterioration of and disturbance to these habitats. This does not comply with National Planning Policy paragraph 175c.


B. LANDSCAPE (INCLUDING THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE)
Currently the site is largely pastoral in character and reflects the historic landscape of both the immediate area and the wider Trent Valley. Furthermore, the existing pastoral landscape is highly important to both the setting and significance of Clifton Hall, as detailed in Barton Parish Council's, 'Assessment of the Historic Environment'. The loss of this pastoral landscape and its replacement with a water based scheme would have a major adverse impact on both the present day and historic landscape character of the area, along with its contribution to both the setting and significance of Clifton Hall which is Grade 1 listed. It would also have a major impact on the landscape of the wider Trent Valley as pastoral areas such as this, which reflect its historic landscape character, are becoming increasingly rare due to the intensification of farming and changes to arable use and the spread of mineral extraction sites.
Importantly, development of this site, together with the urban extension referred to as Fairham Pastures, the former Attenborough gravel extraction site and the Clifton West development of 300 houses will result in unacceptable cumulative impacts on the local landscape character, both during operations and after restoration. As this is contrary to both local and national planning policy, the site should be withdrawn from the draft MLP.

C. GREEN BELT
The siting of the processing plant on Mill Hill, a very prominent ridgeline which was once protected from development in the County Council Structure Plan, will adversely impact on the openness of the Green Belt and therefore conflict with its purpose. As this does not comply with either national or local planning policies, the site should not be allocated in the draft MLP.

D. PUBLIC AMENITY
Two bridleways and one footpath will be subject to direct and indirect impacts during the lengthy operational phase. All are extremely well used by residents of both Barton and Clifton , and by many other people from further afield. The paths remaining open will be blighted by noise, and views of the pastoral landscape currently enjoyed by users will be destroyed. At a time when the government are promoting better health and wellbeing by walking in the countryside, impacts such as these on well used routes are unacceptable.
Bridleway 3 will be subject to serious safety issues for horse riders as they will need to cross both the access road and conveyor. This is a major concern for the many horse riders who regularly use this path which is currently a very safe and popular route for hacking out.
Furthermore, thousands of people visit Attenborough Nature Reserve each year and walk the riverside paths. Their enjoyment of the tranquil environment will be blighted by the noise of heavy machinery and their views of the pastoral landscape destroyed. Furthermore, they will have clear views of the access track and conveyor rising up Brandshill Grassland (LWS).

E. GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD OF MINERALS SITES
The County Council have not clearly and transparently justified the use of 'geographical spread' of mineral sites as a key strategic objective in the draft MLP. This is a very serious omission, particularly as respondents to the Issues and Options Consultation 'generally thought each site should be judged on its merits.' Furthermore, this objective should not be used as the sole reason to destroy such an environmentally sensitive site as this. The Mill Hill/Barton in Fabis site was rejected as an allocation from the last draft Minerals Local Plan on the grounds that it was too environmentally damaging and should be dropped from this plan for the same reasons, particularly as more is now known about the severity of the adverse impacts. GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A REASON TO RIDE ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THIS SITE AND TO JUSTIFY ITS INCLUSION IN THE DRAFT MINERALS LOCAL PLAN.

To whom it may concern

I wish to object to the proposed extraction works as indicated above.
I like to enjoy the wildlife & the beautiful natural surroundings dog walking & with my grand-children & that would no doubt be destroyed or at least endangered by the proposed works.
The proposed extraction works area is within the Green Belt & very close to Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI & Holme Pit SSSI which would be affected too - possibly permanently.
Please do not ruin this lovely oasis that gives so much pleasure to so many.
Thank you

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to MP2s.

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 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 the urban area of Clifton. 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.

Houses and large commercial buildings will soon be built on Fairham Pastures and near to Clifton Wood. The proposed quarry on the land between Barton and Clifton next to the River Trent is one of the very few green spaces left which has not yet allocated for housing and industrial development. If the quarry goes ahead there will be very few areas left for us and future generations to use to keep fit and healthy and for our children to learn and experience nature.

I OBJECT to Sand and Gravel Provision 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'.


I object for the following reasons:

I walk my dogs on a daily basis in and through the proposed site, what provisions will be put in place for those that will be effected? It will take 25 years for the site to re-establish and restore itself.

The noise pollution from the constant working machinery 11 hours a day, 6 days a week.

County Council state gravel sandbank currently exceeds government targets. Why is this site needed?

Building projects used to justify this application are either not due to start for several years or would be better supplied by quarries nearer to the individual build site.

County Council is preparing a new Local Minerals Plan (MLP) which involves calculating future demand and independently comparing all potential requirements. It appears this application is attempting to get around the proper process.

The County Council has already rejected this site as part of the previous draft of the MLP for environmental and other reasons. Why is it being considered again with different wording?

The Barton site has been evaluated as the 3rd most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the country by the County Council's independent Sustainability Assessment.

The effect the quarry will have on both Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away) and Holme Pitt SSSI. These contain 5 sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC's).

Many species of wildlife that would be greatly effected from birds (24 Red and 22 Amber listed bird species), grass snakes, harvest mice, bats, otters, toads and other species that already have conservation concerns.

The size and impact of the site and the 25 year plan for it. This is a long and constant impact on the area that would suffer greatly.

Loss of the peaceful tranquil nature of the area which is used for dog walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and nature photography. This will be a huge impact as the site proposes to be open 6 days a week 11 hours a day.

The footpaths and bridleways that cross the site would have to be diverted or closed impacting on the area as a whole.

The history of the area which has remains from the Roman period and also Iron and Bronze age links documented along with the ridge and furrow field pattern from the middle ages.

Adverse effected on Clifton Hall and Clifton Village conservation area.

The machinery and plant that be working close the bridleways and footpaths. This is a definite potential danger.

The deep water ponds would be a risk to children, this I think is very valid with the death of the child at Beeston Weir.



Thank you for reading this and taking my points into consideration.

Dear Sir / Madam

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

Environmental Impact
It will cause irreparable damage to the landscape, wildlife and bird activity in this beautiful environment, who will lose their home, feeding and breeding grounds. Also the impact on the nearby nature reserves at Attenborough and Holme Pit, designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), whose wildlife and birds access this for feeding It will obliterate a Local Wildlife Site (LWS), partially destroying a further two. There are 24 bird species known to frequent this site which are red-listed, requiring special protection, including the Lesser-Spotted Woodpecker and the Song Thrush, along with a further 22 amber-listed bird species. The proposed area also borders Clifton Woods and Brandshill, which are designated as Ancient Woodland and have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework. I do not feel the proposals justify any "wholly exceptional reasons" as required under this framework. I understand that the RSPB, Natural England, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and Ramblers Association have already objected to a separate planning application for this site.

Human Impact
The proposed site borders the Southern edge of the city, and is used and loved by those of us who like to escape the confines of our daily commute and desk/office/retail/manufacturing/warehouse jobs to get outdoors in the fresh air. I and my husband regularly walk these paths with our dog, and know they are well loved by ramblers, cyclists, riders, anglers and bird watchers. My husband is a hobbyist photographer and enjoys capturing the wildlife and birdlife in this area. At a time when the government is encouraging people to keep active and to manage their mental health to reduce stress and obesity, and to encourage healthy aging, I am horrified that the Council is proposing to remove this vital outdoor recreational space. That's without even considering the fact this development would border a highly populated area, bringing noise and dust, and reducing quality of life for those living in the area.

Insufficient rationale for this site selection
The city already has two sites at Coddington and Shelford, and I have seen no reasonable rationale for the claim that these are too big. Indeed, I am unaware of any future projections for sand and gravel demand that require this development. The Council has conducted a "Sustainability Assessment" which shows this particular site is the most damaging in the operational phase, and the 3rd most damaging long term, whilst then trying to justify overriding this assessment on the basis of "maintaining geographical spread" - with no published data relating to back this up. It also stated a preference to prioritise sites which enabled transportation by river barge, yet shortlisted no sites able to meet this requirement.

In conclusion, at a time when we understand more than ever the impact of human activity on climate change and the consequences for our planet for future generations, I can hardly believe that we would consider this development on 200 acres of greenbelt land. Whilst I appreciate the tricky balance the Council is required to achieve in meeting human demand for resources with their environmental responsibilities, I ask that the Council seriously reconsider this development in light of the reasons above, in the midst of strong opposition from the local population.

Yours sincerely

Whom it may concern. I am writing this too protest against the extraction of gravel.
I am a new bird watcher, having not observed birds since I was a teen. I go to Attenborough at least twice monthly. I met my sister and we went in the hides.
The other week, I had to go to Tesco long Eaton, to do a task for my firm, i took my dog, and after leaving there after a short time, we went to Attenborough nature reserve. We walked away from the car parks, and I followed the River Trent, it was so peaceful, late afternoon, i had not walked this far before, across the river was a swan, on the farmers field were hundreds of geese feeding.
I'm very disappointed that your allowing a company to rip apart this peaceful, beautiful landscape, ALL BECAUSE YOU AND THE COMPANY WANT TO MAKE MONEY.

I am writing to Object to Policy MP2
I have lived and grown up in Barton for 55years. I can't believe that yet again this amazing,beautiful tranquil is under threat from the proposal of a immense sand and gravel pit . There are so so many reasons why we really shouldn't yet again be in this position!!
Have any of the people that are part of this ridiculous plan ever spent any time in this area in fact have they even been here to actually understand what their plans would destroy for ever ,the landscape would never be the same . Everything wouldn't be made by nature itself . If they had , then they would fully understand the passion and fight so many feel and why yet again the response is incredible. Do they realise that residents of Clifton haven't even been notified but as the county councils representative said " we don't have to " not acceptable they have every rite to know many are literally across the road !!
So many people enjoy this natural, beautiful , tranquil vast area , after work kick off their work clothes and enjoy every peaceful second while they walk ,run or cycle .
The area is rich in bird life , Buzzards, Ravens,herons,Owls, in total 24 Red and 22Amber listed bird species live ,feed and breed in this area which compliments Attenborough Nature Reserve which is a SSSI which is only 100meters away . There's Corn Bunting , Barn Owls breeding here , we have grass snakes , harvest mice and many other different species of birds , plants and animals thriving in this quiet unspoilt area.
Even in the Councils OWN sustainability Assessment it was found to be the 3rd MOST environmentally damaging site of all the proposed sites !!!
So many people of different generations on a daily basis have family walks, horse riding, cycling , running in and through this vast area .
As a society we need areas like this to encourage a healthier lifestyle, which the government, NHS and councils promote every day , but if these areas keep being lost there will be no where to go and the family's who are being encouraged to go out walking living a healthier life actually wont be able to !!! Children can explore nature at its most natural, learning from discovering insects,birds ,plants etc in their natural environment and not just in a class room or watching on the tv . These areas are so important and will help fight climate change. This area is rich in history which document evidence shows the Roman period , Iron and Bronze Age . The fields show the Ridge and Furrow pattern which was told to me form my grandparents , my parents and I have told my children when they would run up and down the furrows and ridges , this is such a special memory and over 4 generations we have enjoyed every moment. As a community we have had Duck races , BBQs, Raft races and 90% of all of us began our love of camping and fishing . Growing up we have and still love bird watching ,walking, each season exploring what's growing and living season to season . We respect nature and respect what is beautiful Green Belt
The fields are good agricultural land and every year the crops thrive , the ridge and farrow fields have live stock which many are bred for local butchers .If we keep destroying good graded agricultural land Britain will have none left which means purchasing from abroad which will have a massive impact on our food/living costs not to mention the negative effect on climate change !!
I have a major concern for not only my health but many residents of Barton and especially Lark Hill residents . I have COPD " Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease" at 55 years of age . My lungs are massively affected by this chronic lung disease. When its harvest and the fields are being combined I have to stay inside as the dust from this affects my breathing . Now across from lark hill , which is a retirement complex , many residents are in their latter years , approximately 50% of its residents have some form of respiratory and lung disease. I am not being dramatic but the dust from a minimum of 120 trucks which will be loaded only feet away from their back door which without a doubt would have a massive impact on their breathing and health in fact I would even say a possibility of being a major contributor to bringing an earlier end to their life's !!!! I can have an opinion about this because I have a chronic lung disease and I know what any form of dust,even household dust impairs my ability to breath easily. I have many medical staff that I see and all are horrified at what is being planned and how life threatening this would be to so many .
Another issue is house insurance, already Barton-In-Fabis is flagging up Red zone and some residents have been refused insurance or some policies are so high end priced they can not pay for them which will apply to me also .Also we have been told by a estate agent , house prices will fall and even mortgages could be refused and the plan hasn't even been passed yet !!!
A lot of money and time was put into developing a new road layout to stop traffic congestion and to make exiting Barton safe . Remembrance Way has been successful in having a nice steady flow , even at peak time the traffic still flows a little slower but no longer waiting for an hour to get 2miles !! If this goes ahead the impact on what is a successful road plan will not only cause back up with very slow 20ton lorries using the road . I can see there being many many accidents at Mill Hill roundabout and Lots of delays !!
At what point will everyone stop chipping away at our Green Belt , Tram station , 3000 houses ,shops, school , travellers site and industrial units which will also be using the same exit onto Mill Hill roundabout to enter Remembrance Way to join the M1
I have looked up the meaning of "Green belt " perhaps you should !!!
To finish I really think you should rethink your proposal of the sand and gravel site
I OBJECT to policy MP2 and Sand and gravel Provision and Inclusive site MP2s Mill Hill next Barton-In-Fabis
Leave this important ,beautiful area alone , let nature do what it does best , Live !!!

Please find my objection to policy MP2 Sand and Gravel Provision and Inclusion of site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in fabis

I keep my horses at Burrows farm and have done for over 7 years, i am horrified you want to put a conveyor belt under a bridle path which you expect people to ride their horse over some of us myself inclueded have young horses which have recently been backed and you want to take away somewhere we can ride and be safe, there are so very few bridleways in this area and most people do not have the luxury of keeping their horses at livery yards who have acres and acres of off road riding or accessto indoor / outdoor riding facilites where we can execise them or trailers / lorries so we can take them to safe riding areas . i have been very fortunate to have been able to take my young horse out lead by my very exprienced older horse when my young horse was much younger, who ever came up with this idea has no clue about horses and how dangerous something like this could be and in fact some one could be seriously injured or worse. The dust from this production is going to cover the hay crop our horses eat in winter as well as cover summer grazing paddocks which in turn can cause health problems for example breathing problems to the horses and people who have conditions like COPD and Asthma which are illnesses that can not be cured once you have these you never get rid of them. also you propose to have this conveyor belt going up the field which we call cottage hill this field runs next to the farm and is by our riding paddock so as well as not been able to use the bridle way we wont be able to ride in the riding paddock either as the noise and sight of this conveyor belt rolling up and down the field all day. Drivers do not want us on the road so we try and stick to the bridlepaths we have and now you want to take them away making us have to ride on roads. i bet no one has even considered Mr Marshall and his business and how all of this will effect it His father and himself have ran a livery yard for over 40 years and before that cattle.

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

There are a number of factors I wish to be taken into account:
* The County Councils own Sustainability Assessment shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and 3rd most damaging in the long term.
* The site would result in major impact on two SSSIs - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit which are close to the site and on five SINCs one of which will be destroyed altogether.
* Natural England, RSBP, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
* This 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, horse riding and other leisure pursuits. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottinghamshire damages recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and wellbeing of city dwellers
* 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
* There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different supermarket areas. County Council comment that Shelford for Coddington sites are too big can not be justified
* 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.
Yours sincerely,

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 above site. My primary objection is to the underhanded manner in which the council scrapped the previous approved mineral plan and removed Shelford from inclusion in any further mineral plan assessments. My assumption is that councillors bowed to the political pressures imposed upon them by the council leader rather than in applying scientific and business logic to their decision. A further problem is that your email address to record objections is not working at planning.policy@nottscc.gov.uk
My further objections are in relation to the Barton in Fabis Location:
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 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.
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.
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. County Council comment that 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.
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.

I would have thought that extraction at Shelford would have provided better geographical spread
or was there another reason why this location was not included?
It also appears that Notts is not acknowledging the huge extraction close to Junction 24 presumably
because it is not in the county.

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 works will cut across the Trent Valley Way I suspect making it closed to horses due to the noise
of the conveyors and other machinery.

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.

I sincerely hope that this is not going to be another case of the council ignoring government promises
not to approve developments on Green Belt prime agricultural land, namely the granting of PP
for 3000 houses and commercial buildings on adjacent lands.
In addition the proposed location of the gravel dispatch area, conveyor belts and hoppers/silos on
the highest point of the site will be an eyesore as it will be visible from all points for many miles
and acoustically intrusive locally.
The added daily heavy goods traffic to and from the site will similarly increase traffic noise and
congestion for much of the week. I suspect traffic lights will be needed at the
Mill Hill roundabout to avoid accidents.

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 have written before raising my objections to the above
My main objections are as follows-
1 Lorries fully laden grinding up the hill will course a lot of noise in what is at the moment a tranquil area
2 The area specified is in sufficient in size to warrant setting up new plant to process the gravel which will encourage a new application in the future for an extension up to Thrumpton.
3 This will have an adverse effect on Attenborough Nature Reserve which is a tranquil area to the north side of the river Trent
4 The south side is at present mainly fields, where as the north side is mainly water. This area is therefore important to give diversity to Attenborough Nature Reserve.

Dear Sir / Madam,
Reference: Sand and Gravel Provision Site 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in
Fabis'
I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site.
The County Council's own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site has
the most damaging impact of all sites in the operational phase and is the third
most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to
justify the inclusion of the site on the spurious basis of "maintaining a
geographical spread". Despite the Council stating that "there is no published
data related to geographical spread", it seeks to down play the adverse
impact on sustainability.
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" is subjective and is not based on a quantifiable
scale.
The Council has not allocated any sites which can follow its policy aim to
"Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge".
The site would impact on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI's) -
Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit. These are close to the site.
It will destroy one LWS (Local Wildlife Site) and harm four others.
Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire
Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
Brandshill and Clifton Woods, adjacent to the site, are designated as Ancient
Woodland and have special protection under the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any "wholly exceptional
reasons" required by the NPPF before planning can be granted. Furthermore
the site is in the Green belt.
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.
Yours sincerely,

Reference: Sand and Gravel provision site 'MP2 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 'geographical spread'. Despite the Council stating that "there is no published data related to geographical spread". Therefor their analysis and proposal for Geographical 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 with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" by not including other sites that can transport 40% of minerals by barge.
3. The County Councils own "Sustainability Assessment" clearly shows that a quarry at Mill Hill is the most damaging of all the sites in the operational 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 woodlands 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 altogether.
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 tranquillity 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,

Dear Sir/Madam,
As a resident of Barton in Fabis of some 33yrs I am writing to OBJECT to the above site. The reason my family and I moved here was the peace and tranquility Barton had to offer to say nothing of its strong community, where people care about one another and the environment in which they live.
It is a mystery to all of us in the village that Barton in Fabis has been proposed yet again, after the site had been rejected the last time this subject reared its ugly head. The County Council's own "Sustainability Assessment " reveals that this particular site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term. There has been mention in the Draft Minerals Local Plan of "maintaining a geographical spread" to override the impact on sustainability, thereby justifying the inclusion of the Barton site. However the Council has stated that "there is no published data related to geographical spread". There is a further inconsistency in Council policy, which is to "prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge", but which fails to select its previous choice of Shelford where 40% of minerals would be transported by barge. In addition there have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different sub-market areas and the County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The environmental impact of this very dubious proposal is massive.The effect of noise disturbance on Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI and the impact on the water quality of Holme Pit SSSI will be substantial. In addition the site is rich in bird life and other species, with 24 red- and 22 amber- listed bird species using this area for feeding and breeding. Public Health England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers' Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site, which is in the Green Belt. Brand's Hill and Clifton Woods have been designated as Ancient Woodland, which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework.
We understand that the site will not be restored and established for up to 25yrs. The loss of peace and tranquility will not just affect the people of Barton, but city dwellers and those who live further afield, who enjoy this wonderful amenity so close to the city. Walkers, ramblers, fishermen, horse riders, bird watchers, photographers will no longer be able to pursue their leisure-time activities in the area, particularly as the site will be operating 11 hours a day , 6 days a week.
There are safety issues regarding the risk to children from the deep water ponds. Plant and machinery will be sited close to the bridleway and footpath. Air pollution is another concern especially to asthma sufferers like myself. We have a significant horse population in the village and the quarry will undoubtedly have a negative impact on their respiratory health and on grazing land. The effect of noise and dust will be considerable. Last but not least the Flood Agency had particular concerns regarding the flood risk to the whole area when the last application was made: nothing has changed.
I and many others are suspicious of the real motive behind this new proposal. Many like myself probably know the reason why Shelford has been rejected. The whole issue is highly suspect and does not stand up to scrutiny. I hope due consideration will be given and that this second planning application will be rejected as was the the first one.
Yours faithfully

Dear Sirs

I spent a lovely time yesterday walking from the Clifton South tram stop through to Barton in Fabis and around the Bridlepath towards Clifton and then to Wilford to catch the return tram.. It was a great little nature reserve and it was a flat walk, which consequently meant that we saw loads of dog walkers, joggers, walkers and people there thoroughly enjoying the area. I am a keen bird watcher and realise that the birds from Attenborough use the site too. Attenborough was another place that was ruined by gravel extraction but it is finally being reverted to a nature reserve.

I suffer from a serious mental health condition and I find that walks in the country are one of the joys in life that can help to ease some of my suffering. It will obviously help with other issues including the big problem of obesity.

It did therefore make me very sad when I noticed on some noticeboards the details of the plan to destroy the area by using it for sand & gravel excavation.

I would urge the Council to preserve Nottinghams green belt so that the city is not surrounded by heavy industry but remains a great place to live.

i want object to your plan for mineral rights in the the clifton to barton in fabis area not only will you be distroying a beautiful place for wild life and plant life but also a area used by horse riders, walkers and cyclist, i have been coming to this area since i was a child and rode at burrows farm many years ago. the dust from this will cover the surrounding land which is used as animal feed through the winter and the fact you will devastate a local business Mr Robort Marshall and his late father had built over 70yrs the farm has stood on this site for over 100 years and is used by so many people.horses are flight animals and are spooked easy and the thought of putting a conveyor under a bridlepath is madness as well as damn right dangerous who ever thought of this is a idiot and has no concern for the well fair of the horseriders you are expecting to ride over this.

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 wish to object to the above site.

* I moved to Lark Hill Retirement Village to live a quiet life, in a pleasant enviroment.
* The site lies in direct line of the prevailing wind and dust and noise from the site and lorries would be detrimental to health and well being. This is in addition to the extra road traffic the site would cause.
* The site is on Green Belt land which should be protected - it is bird rich.
* There has been no projection for sand and gravel demand
* There would be damage to historial sites, Clifton Hall, Roman finds etc
* Loss of agricultural land.
* Council has failed its own policy aim to prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge.

I did object to the original plan but understand I need to register my objection again

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

There are a number of factors I wish to be taken into account:
* The County Councils own Sustainability Assessment shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and 3rd most damaging in the long term.
* The site would result in major impact on two SSSIs - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit which are close to the site and on five SINCs one of which will be destroyed altogether.
* Natural England, RSBP, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
* This 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, horse riding and other leisure pursuits. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottinghamshire damages recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and wellbeing of city dwellers
* 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
* There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different supermarket areas. County Council comment that Shelford for Coddington sites are too big can not be justified
* 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.
Yours sincerely,

I object to policy MP2 sand and gravel provision and inclusion of site 'MP2S mill Hill NR Barton in fabis'

I am a horse owner and have had my horse stabled in the area for 11 years now. I find it very hard to understand how you think your plans will work for horse riders in the area. You might not know but horses are flight animals and get spooked very easy. You say on your plans we will keep our bridle path through the woods from clifton to Barton in fabis but what you don't understand is it won't be safe for us to put our horses in the situation of riding past will all the large machinery also going over a conveyor belt that I'm sure will be vibrating will be very dangerous for us, so when we stop using the bridle path it will get closed down for good and would never get it back.

My horse lives a stone through away from the proposed site and already suffers form breathing problems. Who will pay my vet bills when all the dust blowing from the site is making his breathing worse? Who will pay the vet bills when he may get sand colic?

The hacking you will effect is phenomenal and the amount of wildlife you will effect is beyond a JOKE.

We have a lot of activities held on the proposed site e.g. sport endurance rides, walking, running, cycling and so many more.

The amount of lorries you state that will be in and out each day will make it impossible to get from the farm lane on to green Street and then out onto the Mill Hill roundabout. The amount of mud on the road will make it dangerous too. A lot of horse riders use this route as riding too which will stop if this goes ahead. You are proposing a very dangerous site for a lot of people. There would be a major impact on the quality of the life and visual amenity of local people.

I live on Barton Green and the amount it will effect our living at home will be madness. We have such a quiet area and you will be turning it into a very loud and dusty area. We also walk the dog around the area and the amount of people that are disgusted in your proposals. We have another proposal for 285 extra houses going on at the minute. If you both got the go ahead the whole area would come to a stand still with the amount of vehicles about.

I am sure there are better places to think about for this quarry, somewhere where it doesn't effect so many people, animals and wildlife.

I wish to OBJECT to the above site for the following reasons:
* 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.

Hi there,
I would like to object to MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis sand and gravel provision.
If it goes ahead next year, 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. It will most certainly spoil walks along Attenborough Nature Reserve, with planned work continuing for approx 15-25 years. We regularly enjoy visiting the area to visit a local resident. Our young son enjoys playing there and we are concerned about the high levels of dust and noise and his health may be impacted by this. Please consider my objection.

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.
Yours sincerely,

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 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.

Yours faithfully