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

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am the Borough Councillor for Gotham Ward on Rushcliffe Borough Council. My home address is Paradise Farm, The Rushes, Gotham, Notts, NG11 0HY.

I am writing to confirm that I wish to OBJECT to the above site. The Barton site should be excluded from the Plan, as the Shelford site is a better 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, "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 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.
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 faithfully,

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Response from Thrumpton Parish Meeting - September 2018
Summary
1. Thrumpton Parish Meeting objects to the Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan published in July 2018, and, in particular, to the inclusion of the site MP2s at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis.
2. In summary our objection is based on:
a) The identification of flaws in the analysis of issues and options that underpin the Draft Plan, and in particular the identification of geographical spread as a key factor determining site allocation.
b) The application of a rationale for the allocation of sites which is inconsistent with the strategic objectives that have been used to shape the Draft Plan.
c) The allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis even though the NCCs own analysis shows it to be one of the most damaging developments for sand and gravel of those considered. Such an allocation is inconsistent with the strategic objectives set out in the plan and the strategic policy for sustainable development and planning requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework that should underpin it.
d) The process by which the draft plan has been formulated is flawed, and the recommendations in relation to Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis are therefore unsound. The analysis of the site listed variously as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west) is also inaccurate, seriously under-rating its potential impact on local residents. The revised Draft Minerals Plan does not therefore meet the standard of evidence-based planning that is to be expected in the minerals planning process.
The detailed reasoning for these objections is set out in the response from Barton in Fabis Parish Council which we would ask you to make reference to. We will summarise our position and our objections in this response.
Response to Consultation Questions
Question 1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
Question 2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Question 3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
We object to the way in which the plan fails to adhere to the strategic objectives set out in 2.30 rather than to the objectives themselves. In particular, SO6 'Protecting and enhancing natural assets' states that an objective is to 'Conserve and enhance Nottinghamshire's natural environment, including its distinctive landscapes, habitats, geology, wildlife species and ecological health of water bodies by avoiding, minimising and mitigating potential

negative impacts.' The Plan has then allocated sites with the greatest environmental impact simply on grounds of size and location - even though nether size nor location appear as strategic objectives. The site allocation process is therefore flawed.
We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the site allocation methodology developed and applied is inconsistent with the strategic objectives of the strategic policy for minerals provision.
Question 4 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
We object to the plan on grounds that the policy for biodiversity-led restoration is inadequate. Its application as a criteria for site allocation is flawed because it does not meaningfully discriminate between proposals in terms of the likely success of biodiversity-led restoration.
Question 6: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
We object to the Plan and the policy related to sustainable transport because we feel that It is not the function of the planning system to manipulate the geography of the market and associated commercial risk, but rather to ensure that development is appropriate and sustainable, given wider societal needs and requirements. The policy on sustainable transport needs to reflect this. One such requirement, for example, is the use of modes of transport other than road. Another is that the most vulnerable and valuable sites are protected notwithstanding their proximity to market.
Question 7: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
We object to the formulation of Policy SP6 because of the lack of transparency in the way it is applied in the site allocation process. The emphasis on restoration should be reduced and the importance of protection and maintenance of assets should be stressed.
Question 8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
Policy SP7 is not transparent in that it fails to state how, in the context of minerals planning, the two tests of 'appropriateness' and 'special circumstances' will be applied. It should be noted that 'special circumstances' in relation to the Green Belt do not include supposed proximity to market or goals of developing a 'spatially sustainable distribution' of minerals sites.
We therefore object to the policy statement on green belt because it lacks any clear indication of how it is to be applied in the minerals planning process.

Question 11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
We object to the application of the site Draft Selection Methodology and its conclusions on grounds of the inconsistency of its outcomes with the stated policy objectives that are stated as underpinning the Draft Plan.
The Draft Plan is therefore flawed and should be revised accordingly to meet the County's own sustainability objectives. In order to do so:
* sites should be considered on their own merits to minimise the likely overall environmental impacts of the Draft Plan;
* geographical spread should only be used to make decisions between sites when all other things are considered equal in order that it does not over-ride consideration of the scale of environmental damage likely to arise by the inappropriate selection of sites due to location. Proximity to market is not an 'exceptional circumstance' as envisaged by the NPPF.
Site at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
We believe the scale of the impacts for the Mill Hill site have been under-estimated, making the decision insecure. We therefore object to the assessment made for the Mill Hill site.
The allocation of the site is not consistent with the objectives of SO6 or SP6. The landscape impacts are amongst the highest attributed to any site in the appraisal matrix, the allocation of this site in the Draft Plan is clearly inconsistent with Policy SP6.
The impact of the proposed development on the greenbelt also conflicts with the stated policy in SP6, because the processing plant will be located on a prominent ridgeline on Mill Hill. This will have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in this area. It will therefore conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and should consequently be considered inappropriate development.
The bridleway passing through and near the site is part of the Trent Valley Way and is an important strategic route between Barton and Thrumpton in the county and Clifton and Wilford in the city which is extremely well-used by walkers, cyclists, and horseriders. The path will be close to quarry workings and will have to cross the site access road and gravel conveyor - this will have a major negative impact on users.
Just a river's width away from the site, those who walk Attenborough's riverside paths will continually view the adverse effects of the site over the lengthy operational period and will no longer be able to enjoy the peace and tranquillity of Attenborough Nature Reserve - a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and one of the most important sites for conservation in the East Midlands. The noise and dust will have a negative impact on wildlife in the reserve.
The impacts are very negative in both the operational phase and the long-term operation and clearly inconsistent with most of the key sustainability objectives and strategic policies that frame the minerals plan. There is a lack of transparency in the assessment in terms of how the site is allocated on the grounds of viability and location when the impact assessment clearly indicates that there are other sites where impacts are far less serious.
The process by which the recommendation arose is flawed, and neither transparent or credible given even the partial evidence-base identified in the Draft Plan.

We therefore object to the allocation of the Mill Hill site.
Our main concerns with the allocation of the site are as follows:
* 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 based on "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 - including the new Fairham Pastures development of 3,000 homes - 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. 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.

Site described as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west)
We are also concerned about inaccuracies in the analysis of the site included in the 'Draft site selection methodology and assessment July 2018' and listed as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west). Although this site has not been selected, this site assessment may be further used following the outcomes of this consultation and possibly as evidence for future mineral plans or planning applications, we therefore believe it is crucial that the information is reassessed and corrected.
Our main concerns are as follows:
Site location
This site is actually in the parish of Thrumpton and, as a consequence, was not immediately evident to residents of Thrumpton as being in such close proximity to the village. The site should be renamed to include Thrumpton to make its location clear.
Sustainability assessment
The assessment of visual sensitivity states:
The main visual impact would be on residents to the southern edge of Barton in Fabis and on users of the Trent Valley Way to the north of the site. There would be more distant views from residential properties on the northern edge of Thrumpton.
In reality, around 50% of Thrumpton properties would have a clear view of the site - these would not be 'distant views' as the site would be within 400-800 metres. The site would also be highly visible from the A453. Crucially, three properties (Fields Farm, The Orchard and Canterbury House) directly adjoin the site yet criteria 14 'Protect and improve human health and quality of life' makes no reference to the close-proximity of these properties and the assessment gives no consideration to the drastic impact (including noise, dust, traffic movement, visual amenity, property value) on these properties and their residents. Lack of reference to such an important factor indicates an inadequate assessment process.
Transport/highway implications
The Transport Evidence Base states that the Annual Average Daily Flow of HGVs on Green Street/Barton Lane is 15 and would be increased by 90 additional lorry movements per day - an increase of 600%. It dismisses this by stating that "Percentage changes in traffic on Green Street would be high, but this is mainly a result of this route being bypassed by the A453 leaving only low residual traffic flows." It also states that "once onto Green Street the route to the A453 is short."
In reality it is 1.8 miles on a road clearly approved and designated as part of the A453 dualling scheme as a route for non-motorised users linking Mill Hill to Long Lane. This number of lorry movements is simply not compatible with safe cycling, walking or horse riding on a road where there is no traffic separation. 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. The report's conclusion that No road safety issues identified is therefore flawed, inaccurate and highly misleading.

Conclusion
We object to a number of aspects of the Draft Plan as set out above.
The evidence for the Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site - one of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the assessment (and rejected on these grounds previously by the Council) - does not support its selection.
We believe the criteria and the process used were flawed. The inaccuracies in the assessment of Barton in Fabis (west) raise further questions about the robustness of the assessment process.

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Response from Thrumpton Parish Meeting - September 2018
Summary
1. Thrumpton Parish Meeting objects to the Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan published in July 2018, and, in particular, to the inclusion of the site MP2s at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis.
2. In summary our objection is based on:
a) The identification of flaws in the analysis of issues and options that underpin the Draft Plan, and in particular the identification of geographical spread as a key factor determining site allocation.
b) The application of a rationale for the allocation of sites which is inconsistent with the strategic objectives that have been used to shape the Draft Plan.
c) The allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis even though the NCCs own analysis shows it to be one of the most damaging developments for sand and gravel of those considered. Such an allocation is inconsistent with the strategic objectives set out in the plan and the strategic policy for sustainable development and planning requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework that should underpin it.
d) The process by which the draft plan has been formulated is flawed, and the recommendations in relation to Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis are therefore unsound. The analysis of the site listed variously as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west) is also inaccurate, seriously under-rating its potential impact on local residents. The revised Draft Minerals Plan does not therefore meet the standard of evidence-based planning that is to be expected in the minerals planning process.
The detailed reasoning for these objections is set out in the response from Barton in Fabis Parish Council which we would ask you to make reference to. We will summarise our position and our objections in this response.
Response to Consultation Questions
Question 1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
Question 2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Question 3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
We object to the way in which the plan fails to adhere to the strategic objectives set out in 2.30 rather than to the objectives themselves. In particular, SO6 'Protecting and enhancing natural assets' states that an objective is to 'Conserve and enhance Nottinghamshire's natural environment, including its distinctive landscapes, habitats, geology, wildlife species and ecological health of water bodies by avoiding, minimising and mitigating potential

negative impacts.' The Plan has then allocated sites with the greatest environmental impact simply on grounds of size and location - even though nether size nor location appear as strategic objectives. The site allocation process is therefore flawed.
We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the site allocation methodology developed and applied is inconsistent with the strategic objectives of the strategic policy for minerals provision.
Question 4 What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
We object to the plan on grounds that the policy for biodiversity-led restoration is inadequate. Its application as a criteria for site allocation is flawed because it does not meaningfully discriminate between proposals in terms of the likely success of biodiversity-led restoration.
Question 6: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
We object to the Plan and the policy related to sustainable transport because we feel that It is not the function of the planning system to manipulate the geography of the market and associated commercial risk, but rather to ensure that development is appropriate and sustainable, given wider societal needs and requirements. The policy on sustainable transport needs to reflect this. One such requirement, for example, is the use of modes of transport other than road. Another is that the most vulnerable and valuable sites are protected notwithstanding their proximity to market.
Question 7: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
We object to the formulation of Policy SP6 because of the lack of transparency in the way it is applied in the site allocation process. The emphasis on restoration should be reduced and the importance of protection and maintenance of assets should be stressed.
Question 8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
Policy SP7 is not transparent in that it fails to state how, in the context of minerals planning, the two tests of 'appropriateness' and 'special circumstances' will be applied. It should be noted that 'special circumstances' in relation to the Green Belt do not include supposed proximity to market or goals of developing a 'spatially sustainable distribution' of minerals sites.
We therefore object to the policy statement on green belt because it lacks any clear indication of how it is to be applied in the minerals planning process.

Question 11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
We object to the application of the site Draft Selection Methodology and its conclusions on grounds of the inconsistency of its outcomes with the stated policy objectives that are stated as underpinning the Draft Plan.
The Draft Plan is therefore flawed and should be revised accordingly to meet the County's own sustainability objectives. In order to do so:
* sites should be considered on their own merits to minimise the likely overall environmental impacts of the Draft Plan;
* geographical spread should only be used to make decisions between sites when all other things are considered equal in order that it does not over-ride consideration of the scale of environmental damage likely to arise by the inappropriate selection of sites due to location. Proximity to market is not an 'exceptional circumstance' as envisaged by the NPPF.
Site at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
We believe the scale of the impacts for the Mill Hill site have been under-estimated, making the decision insecure. We therefore object to the assessment made for the Mill Hill site.
The allocation of the site is not consistent with the objectives of SO6 or SP6. The landscape impacts are amongst the highest attributed to any site in the appraisal matrix, the allocation of this site in the Draft Plan is clearly inconsistent with Policy SP6.
The impact of the proposed development on the greenbelt also conflicts with the stated policy in SP6, because the processing plant will be located on a prominent ridgeline on Mill Hill. This will have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in this area. It will therefore conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and should consequently be considered inappropriate development.
The bridleway passing through and near the site is part of the Trent Valley Way and is an important strategic route between Barton and Thrumpton in the county and Clifton and Wilford in the city which is extremely well-used by walkers, cyclists, and horseriders. The path will be close to quarry workings and will have to cross the site access road and gravel conveyor - this will have a major negative impact on users.
Just a river's width away from the site, those who walk Attenborough's riverside paths will continually view the adverse effects of the site over the lengthy operational period and will no longer be able to enjoy the peace and tranquillity of Attenborough Nature Reserve - a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and one of the most important sites for conservation in the East Midlands. The noise and dust will have a negative impact on wildlife in the reserve.
The impacts are very negative in both the operational phase and the long-term operation and clearly inconsistent with most of the key sustainability objectives and strategic policies that frame the minerals plan. There is a lack of transparency in the assessment in terms of how the site is allocated on the grounds of viability and location when the impact assessment clearly indicates that there are other sites where impacts are far less serious.
The process by which the recommendation arose is flawed, and neither transparent or credible given even the partial evidence-base identified in the Draft Plan.

We therefore object to the allocation of the Mill Hill site.
Our main concerns with the allocation of the site are as follows:
* 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 based on "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 - including the new Fairham Pastures development of 3,000 homes - 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. 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.

Site described as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west)
We are also concerned about inaccuracies in the analysis of the site included in the 'Draft site selection methodology and assessment July 2018' and listed as Barton in Fabis or Barton in Fabis (west). Although this site has not been selected, this site assessment may be further used following the outcomes of this consultation and possibly as evidence for future mineral plans or planning applications, we therefore believe it is crucial that the information is reassessed and corrected.
Our main concerns are as follows:
Site location
This site is actually in the parish of Thrumpton and, as a consequence, was not immediately evident to residents of Thrumpton as being in such close proximity to the village. The site should be renamed to include Thrumpton to make its location clear.
Sustainability assessment
The assessment of visual sensitivity states:
The main visual impact would be on residents to the southern edge of Barton in Fabis and on users of the Trent Valley Way to the north of the site. There would be more distant views from residential properties on the northern edge of Thrumpton.
In reality, around 50% of Thrumpton properties would have a clear view of the site - these would not be 'distant views' as the site would be within 400-800 metres. The site would also be highly visible from the A453. Crucially, three properties (Fields Farm, The Orchard and Canterbury House) directly adjoin the site yet criteria 14 'Protect and improve human health and quality of life' makes no reference to the close-proximity of these properties and the assessment gives no consideration to the drastic impact (including noise, dust, traffic movement, visual amenity, property value) on these properties and their residents. Lack of reference to such an important factor indicates an inadequate assessment process.
Transport/highway implications
The Transport Evidence Base states that the Annual Average Daily Flow of HGVs on Green Street/Barton Lane is 15 and would be increased by 90 additional lorry movements per day - an increase of 600%. It dismisses this by stating that "Percentage changes in traffic on Green Street would be high, but this is mainly a result of this route being bypassed by the A453 leaving only low residual traffic flows." It also states that "once onto Green Street the route to the A453 is short."
In reality it is 1.8 miles on a road clearly approved and designated as part of the A453 dualling scheme as a route for non-motorised users linking Mill Hill to Long Lane. This number of lorry movements is simply not compatible with safe cycling, walking or horse riding on a road where there is no traffic separation. 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. The report's conclusion that No road safety issues identified is therefore flawed, inaccurate and highly misleading.

Conclusion
We object to a number of aspects of the Draft Plan as set out above.
The evidence for the Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis site - one of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the assessment (and rejected on these grounds previously by the Council) - does not support its selection.
We believe the criteria and the process used were flawed. The inaccuracies in the assessment of Barton in Fabis (west) raise further questions about the robustness of the assessment process.

Dear Sirs ,
Re. Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Consultation - 27th July to 28th September 2018
The Scrooby Parish Council have the following comments to state on the latest version of the Notts CC Minerals Local Plan (2018).
a) Whilst we agree that minerals are required and that presently the Scrooby Top Quarry is a good source of one particular mineral, it does seem a "rape" of the rest of the agricultural areas of Scrooby along either side of the Great North Road to provide future sources.
b) We would therefore need to be entirely satisfied that these two sites are the best and ONLY sites for that supply. This would be looked upon on an application by application basis as each arose.
c) Specifically, we would also require urgent assurances as to the restoration of the quarried land, back to agricultural status and within a reasonable timescale. The last thing neither Notts CC nor Scrooby Parish want is to have huge holes in the landscape either side of the A638 Great North Road for any length of time.
d) Care must be taken not to spoil the rural characteristic of the Scrooby Parish and Village and turn it into an industrial wasteland like most of this type of work does to a parish. In particular that would contravene the ethos and target of the soon to be completed Scrooby Neighbourhood Plan, which must and will be taken into account when assessing each individual application to mine these proposals.
e) Again development of works like these come around to traffic. The plan should keep in mind to minimise any additional traffic through the parish of Scrooby. And in particular through the village along the A638 Great North Road. It should document that Scrooby Parish Council is acutely aware of
a) The current volume of HGV's going along the A638, b) The additional traffic being created by either the Barnby Moor quarry development, or the Botany Bay proposals, c) The traffic from the Tinker Lane fracking site if it comes into full production, d) Remain mindful of the number of instances the A1 is
closed and the Great North Road is used as a diversion, and finally e) Scrooby Parish remain acutely aware it has 3 bridges at either end of the village on the Great North Road, none of which were ever built to sustain these volumes of traffic. It could therefore be that at some time in the not too distant
future 3 new road bridges will be needed and no doubt the Notts CC will be wanting to past some of that cost on to the Quarry developers.
f) Scrooby Parish Council is also a strong supporter of the Barnby Moor objections to the "Hanson's Quarry" application currently in discussion. And they are acutely aware of the apparent abuse of the last Minerals Plan and the objections and agreements taken in the recent past. They hope that will not be the case when discussing any expansion of the Scrooby Top and Scrooby North sites.

Dear Sirs
Ref: Minerals Local Plan Consultation response from Ranskill Parish Council
Ranskill Parish Council wish to register their concerns regarding the proposals in the latest draft of the Minerals Local Plan, specifically in relation to the Strategic Transport Assessment which has been issued in support of the proposed Minerals Plan and forms an integral part of the assessment of the suitability of site specific allocations.
In your preamble regarding the supporting documents you state that your Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) "... has been completed to ensure that there are no unacceptable overall impacts on the highways network... and concludes "... that the highway impacts of new or extended mineral sites would be minimal..." Whilst the impact on the Highways network appears to have been adequately covered there is very little said in the STA about the impact on communities which you state is one of your key strategic objectives in section DM9 of the plan i.e
"Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that...
c) Where appropriate, adequate vehicle routeing schemes have been put in place to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities".
Ranskill Parish Council's concerns relate to the STA for the following sites which are all on land adjacent to Ranskill Parish:
Scrooby (MP2K)
Scrooby North (MP2n)
Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)
The STA in relation to these sites states in section 3.22 that "outbound HGV traffic will route towards the A1 (M) J34 by turning right out of the access onto the A638 before joining the B6045 (and subsequently the A634). Inbound HGV traffic would route vice versa and turn left into the site access. This does however pass through sensitive receptors in Ranskill and Blyth".
Ranskill Parish Council are extremely concerned about the impact of this on the community of Ranskill. The junction of the A638 and B6045 is already an issue for many residents and is right in the centre of the village as regards services, with the shop and pub on opposite sides of the junction. Planning permission has been granted for 32 dwellings to be built close to this junction with their main access being on to the A638. B6045 (Blyth Road) is a residential road and although it is stating the obvious it is a "B" road not a "A" road.
According to the vehicle movement numbers given in section 3.22 combined with the delivery schedules given in appendix 2, Ranskill would be subject to a further 62 vehicle movements a day between 2019 and 2022 inclusive on top of the vehicle movements from the existing quarry.
In addition, there is currently a planning application awaiting a decision by Notts CC ES/3793 for a quarry at Barnby Moor which could see an additional 100 vehicle a day being routed though Ranskill should it be given planning permission. This existing application cannot be ignored just because no decision has yet been reached.
Although the Parish Council are fully aware that according to your STA summary "... all sites will require a detailed transport assessment at the planning application stage" they fear that the reality will be that this route, having been stated in the plan and it's supporting documents, will become accepted as the status quo without any investigation of alternative routeings taking place.
Ranskill Parish Council would therefore like to request that Notts CC investigate an alternative route which would use the A638 going north to the A638/A614 junction where lorries could then take the A614 to the A1.
This would allow laden HGVs leaving the site to do a left turn out of the site. Although it could be said to pass through Scrooby the A638 skirts the very edge of the village which unlike Ranskill is centred away from the A638. From there traffic could travel via the A614 to the A1 junction without passing through any other communities.
Ranskill Parish Council are at a loss to understand why this route is not the first choice and why the County Council would prefer to route traffic through the centre of Ranskill and Blyth and use a "B" road. If the decision is taken not to investigate alternative routings the Parish Council would be very grateful for an explanation which they can pass on to their residents.
Finally, in relation to MP2m - Scrooby Thompson Land, the Parish Council would like to clarify whether the County Council are proposing that access to this site will be via Folly Nook Lane as this would be a further cause for concern in light of recent and proposed new building taking place along the lane.

1. Objection to Site Allocation for Extension to Sand and Gravel Quarry "East Leake North".

East Leake Parish Council strongly objects to the allocation of site reference MP2q designated "East Leake North", on the following grounds:

* Proximity to existing housing, including new developments on Cornflower Way and at the top of Meeting House Close which are not shown on the map of the site. Residents are concerned about dust and noise from quarrying equipment and from lorries used to transport the quarried material for processing, and a full analysis is required of the potential impact with details of the operation and proposed mitigating measures subject to public consultation.
* Proximity to homes also increases potential danger to children, especially if deep water is present.
* Proximity to the main East Leake Playing Fields provision, also not shown on the map. The playing fields are used by players of all ages, including children, and windborne dust could give rise to respiratory issues.
* Impact on wildlife by sacrificing an area of habitat currently rich in a variety of species of mammals and birds.
* Potential negative impact on Local Wildlife Sites - Sheepwash Brook Wetlands adjacent to the site and Manor Farm close by.
* Threat to historic bridge which is a remnant of the ancient road from East Leake to Loughborough. We understand that this was preserved by burying it on the island in the centre of the lake (see letter from a resident at Appendix 1 below). There is some local talk also of a Holy Well in the same area.
* Loss of amenity to users of the public right of way to Rempstone and the historical site of St Peter in the Rushes. To provide access to the quarry extension a bridge would be required over Sheepwash Brook, and unless carefully positioned this could be an ugly and dominant feature in this area of amenity enjoyed by many residents, with the potential to disrupt and pollute the watercourse.
* East Leake has a "made" Neighbourhood Plan, whose policy E1 protects the ring of ridges surrounding the village, to provide a ring of green when viewed from inside the village and a circle of green fields screening the village when viewed from outside. This site lies on Ridge C shown in Fig 5.1/1 of the Neighbourhood Plan. It is not clear from the plans how this development would impact on the ridgeline in the short term or permanently and this should be considered.
* Section 5.2 and policy E2 of the East Leake Neighbourhood Plan also have some relevance to this proposal. Policy E2 protects green corridors (including the course of the Sheepwash Brook) and local wildlife sites.
* As well as threat to the green corridor there is a threat to the visual amenity value of Sheepwash Brook which flows on through the village of East Leake and forms a major attraction in the conservation area. Any future quarrying operation would have to be designed so that the water flow through the brook is neither increased nor reduced, and does not cause pollution or silting.
* The site lies over an area that already has consent for mining of gypsum and there are concerns that a combination of mining and surface quarrying could be dangerous. Has a combined risk assessment been undertaken? Would quarrying for sand and gravel cause the underlying gypsum reserves to be sterilised? Does the area have oil and/or shale gas deposits creating additional potential conflict?
* This is in the safeguarded area for East Midlands Airport and creation of additional water bodies could cause danger to aircraft from bird strikes.
* Continued use of the processing plant - this will extend by a further period of at least 4 years the adverse impact on residents close to the processing plant.
* Potential that extending the quarry will delay the landscape restoration of the earlier phases, jeopardising regeneration of wildlife and provision of public access to restored areas.
* Part of the justification for this site is to provide a geographical spread of sites. If the huge site at Barton (MP2s plus Nottingham City part of the site) is developed, this argument is weakened.
* Should this proposal go forward to the next stage of consultation then detailed restoration plans would be needed so that the public be given an opportunity to comment. There is alarm spreading that excavated quarries could be used for landfill at some time in the future. If there is any chance of this highly unsuitable site being taken forward, restoration plans presented for consultation must guarantee the increased amenity value of the restored area and provide public access in a safe manner with car park provision for visitors.

2. Comments on Policies in the Plan

* Policy SP2 prioritizes extension of existing sites over creating new ones, and while we understand the arguments given for this, we disagree with the policy. The overriding criteria to be considered when allocating sites should be the impacts on residents nearby. Site extensions mean that the same residents endure the burden of noise and pollution, and for longer periods of time. A green field site away from habitation could be preferable. We request changes to the wording of this policy and para 3.11.

* Restoration and Public Access - policy SP3 has the laudable aim of restoration to maximise biodiversity gains, however it says nothing about public access. When restoration schemes are drawn up public access should be considered with the aim, where appropriate, to provide safe, convenient access to the public, including disabled.

* Omission - We cannot see where consideration is given to sites that have the potential for extraction of more than one mineral type. The example in our area is gypsum underlying gravel (and possibly shale gas underlying both). It may be necessary to prioritise one type of mineral extraction over another. Risk assessment may be needed if different minerals are to be extracted simultaneously. Extraction of one type of mineral may sterilise reserves of another. Policy DM8 and associated text could be modified to encompass this.

3. Criticism of the Process of Consultation

* East Leake Parish Council has repeatedly responded to several consultations on the minerals plan in recent years, but at no time was this proposed quarry extension mentioned. The site allocation was not in the issues and options document.
* Site allocations were buried in the documentation and only came to the attention of the Parish Council three weeks before end of consultation period, when details of the exhibitions were sent out.
* Residents nearby have not been informed by Nottinghamshire County Council, and we are told that they do not intend to do so - this is unacceptable.
* The OS map used is out of date - new housing and the main East Leake playing fields are very close to the site but not shown.
* The designation "East Leake North" unhelpful - it is not north of East Leake. Residents near the site seeing the title have assumed it is located to the North of East Leake, and therefore not near them.

1. Objection to Site Allocation for Extension to Sand and Gravel Quarry "East Leake North".

East Leake Parish Council strongly objects to the allocation of site reference MP2q designated "East Leake North", on the following grounds:

* Proximity to existing housing, including new developments on Cornflower Way and at the top of Meeting House Close which are not shown on the map of the site. Residents are concerned about dust and noise from quarrying equipment and from lorries used to transport the quarried material for processing, and a full analysis is required of the potential impact with details of the operation and proposed mitigating measures subject to public consultation.
* Proximity to homes also increases potential danger to children, especially if deep water is present.
* Proximity to the main East Leake Playing Fields provision, also not shown on the map. The playing fields are used by players of all ages, including children, and windborne dust could give rise to respiratory issues.
* Impact on wildlife by sacrificing an area of habitat currently rich in a variety of species of mammals and birds.
* Potential negative impact on Local Wildlife Sites - Sheepwash Brook Wetlands adjacent to the site and Manor Farm close by.
* Threat to historic bridge which is a remnant of the ancient road from East Leake to Loughborough. We understand that this was preserved by burying it on the island in the centre of the lake (see letter from a resident at Appendix 1 below). There is some local talk also of a Holy Well in the same area.
* Loss of amenity to users of the public right of way to Rempstone and the historical site of St Peter in the Rushes. To provide access to the quarry extension a bridge would be required over Sheepwash Brook, and unless carefully positioned this could be an ugly and dominant feature in this area of amenity enjoyed by many residents, with the potential to disrupt and pollute the watercourse.
* East Leake has a "made" Neighbourhood Plan, whose policy E1 protects the ring of ridges surrounding the village, to provide a ring of green when viewed from inside the village and a circle of green fields screening the village when viewed from outside. This site lies on Ridge C shown in Fig 5.1/1 of the Neighbourhood Plan. It is not clear from the plans how this development would impact on the ridgeline in the short term or permanently and this should be considered.
* Section 5.2 and policy E2 of the East Leake Neighbourhood Plan also have some relevance to this proposal. Policy E2 protects green corridors (including the course of the Sheepwash Brook) and local wildlife sites.
* As well as threat to the green corridor there is a threat to the visual amenity value of Sheepwash Brook which flows on through the village of East Leake and forms a major attraction in the conservation area. Any future quarrying operation would have to be designed so that the water flow through the brook is neither increased nor reduced, and does not cause pollution or silting.
* The site lies over an area that already has consent for mining of gypsum and there are concerns that a combination of mining and surface quarrying could be dangerous. Has a combined risk assessment been undertaken? Would quarrying for sand and gravel cause the underlying gypsum reserves to be sterilised? Does the area have oil and/or shale gas deposits creating additional potential conflict?
* This is in the safeguarded area for East Midlands Airport and creation of additional water bodies could cause danger to aircraft from bird strikes.
* Continued use of the processing plant - this will extend by a further period of at least 4 years the adverse impact on residents close to the processing plant.
* Potential that extending the quarry will delay the landscape restoration of the earlier phases, jeopardising regeneration of wildlife and provision of public access to restored areas.
* Part of the justification for this site is to provide a geographical spread of sites. If the huge site at Barton (MP2s plus Nottingham City part of the site) is developed, this argument is weakened.
* Should this proposal go forward to the next stage of consultation then detailed restoration plans would be needed so that the public be given an opportunity to comment. There is alarm spreading that excavated quarries could be used for landfill at some time in the future. If there is any chance of this highly unsuitable site being taken forward, restoration plans presented for consultation must guarantee the increased amenity value of the restored area and provide public access in a safe manner with car park provision for visitors.

2. Comments on Policies in the Plan

* Policy SP2 prioritizes extension of existing sites over creating new ones, and while we understand the arguments given for this, we disagree with the policy. The overriding criteria to be considered when allocating sites should be the impacts on residents nearby. Site extensions mean that the same residents endure the burden of noise and pollution, and for longer periods of time. A green field site away from habitation could be preferable. We request changes to the wording of this policy and para 3.11.

* Restoration and Public Access - policy SP3 has the laudable aim of restoration to maximise biodiversity gains, however it says nothing about public access. When restoration schemes are drawn up public access should be considered with the aim, where appropriate, to provide safe, convenient access to the public, including disabled.

* Omission - We cannot see where consideration is given to sites that have the potential for extraction of more than one mineral type. The example in our area is gypsum underlying gravel (and possibly shale gas underlying both). It may be necessary to prioritise one type of mineral extraction over another. Risk assessment may be needed if different minerals are to be extracted simultaneously. Extraction of one type of mineral may sterilise reserves of another. Policy DM8 and associated text could be modified to encompass this.

3. Criticism of the Process of Consultation

* East Leake Parish Council has repeatedly responded to several consultations on the minerals plan in recent years, but at no time was this proposed quarry extension mentioned. The site allocation was not in the issues and options document.
* Site allocations were buried in the documentation and only came to the attention of the Parish Council three weeks before end of consultation period, when details of the exhibitions were sent out.
* Residents nearby have not been informed by Nottinghamshire County Council, and we are told that they do not intend to do so - this is unacceptable.
* The OS map used is out of date - new housing and the main East Leake playing fields are very close to the site but not shown.
* The designation "East Leake North" unhelpful - it is not north of East Leake. Residents near the site seeing the title have assumed it is located to the North of East Leake, and therefore not near them.

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

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

Nottinghamshire County Council Draft Minerals Local Plan Consultation
As the UK's leading woodland conservation charity, the Trust aims to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future. Through the restoration and improvement of woodland biodiversity and increased awareness and understanding of important woodland, these aims can be achieved.
We own and manage over 1000 sites across the UK, covering around 23,000 hectares (57,000 acres) and we have 500,000 members and supporters.
Ancient woodland is defined as an irreplaceable natural resource that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide
for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost.
As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable sites from any form of disruptive development.
Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats.
Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value. Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.
Planning Policy
We note that you recognise that your consultation period overlaps with the publication of the revised NPPF and that subsequent drafts will reflect the new framework. The 2018 revision significantly improves the protection of ancient woodland with the revised policy set out in paragraph 175c:
...development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional
reasons58 and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
Footnote 58 states:
For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.
This is a significant change from the wording set out in Policy DM4: Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity which echoes the 2012 NPPF. We hope to see this updated in the next iteration of your plan as per your commitment set out on page nine of the draft.

It must be noted that the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) gives equal protection to Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS) as it does to Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ASNW) (Paragraph:
021 Reference ID: 8-021-20140306). We are also expecting the PPG to be further updated to reflect the NPP revisions.
Allocated Sites
Planning authorities and inspectors increasingly act to prevent its direct destruction. However, the damage and impacts posed to ancient woods by nearby development are not so widely appreciated.
As such we are concerned to see that minerals activities have been allocated next to two ancient woodland sites, as set out in the table below. We request that every effort is made to appropriately buffer these woodlands with new planting of a minimum of 50m to protect their unique and irreplaceable nature. Please consult the Woodland Trust at the earliest opportunity in the event of any future applications on the site.
Site Allocation Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Local Plan 2018

MP2r - Botany Bay
Retford Sand and gravel quarry
Adjacent Unmapped ancient woodland
Barnby Fox Covert*
(SK6676383259)
MP2s - Mill Hill (Near Barton in Fabis) Beeston Sand and gravel quarry
Adjacent Brandshill Wood -
ASNW**
(SK5307433430)
*Ancient woodland status of Barnby Fox Covert should be assessed by Natural England.
**Currently being added to the Ancient Woodland Inventory by Natural England.

Intensifying land uses adjacent to ancient woodland can have a significant impact upon the woodland in a number of different ways:
Increased activity such as through mineral extraction can result in: modified local hydrological regimes; vibration; noise and light pollution; vehicular collisions with wildlife; external activity visible from within the wood; an increase in wind-blown litter accumulation; and tree surgery or felling along the woodland edge for safety reasons or subsidence prevention.
Noise and light pollution interfere with interactions between species, affecting foraging and predation, reducing breeding success and thereby affecting on-going population viability.
Disturbance may, therefore, lead to species being eliminated from woods.
Vegetation clearance near to ancient woodland may affect woodland hydrology, increasing the likelihood of water-logging or drought and leading to loss of trees and changes in species composition. Soil compaction adjacent to woodland increases water run-off and soil erosion. It can cause severe damage to tree roots, leading to tree defoliation, crown dieback, and death.
The Trust asks that ancient woodland is considered as a key constraint in the future development of these sites and that the appropriate planted buffer is put in place. We would also take this opportunity to ask to be consulted on all forthcoming applications affecting ancient woodland.

I am writing on behalf of the Nottinghamshire Branch of The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in response to the County Council's consultation on its draft plan.

I want to say, at the outset, that CPRE recognises the need for mineral extraction in Nottinghamshire. However, it also needs to be recognised both by local authorities, the industry and others that the impact of extracting millions of tonnes of aggregates (sand, gravel, and rock) every year on the countryside and local communities can be enormous, both during the operation and afterwards. There is a need to reduce the level of extraction in future by making better use of mineral resources and developing alternatives.

While having some small quarries to meet local needs may be appropriate (such as to provide stone to maintain locally characteristic housing) the size of modern quarries, combined with their location in often sensitive rural environments, makes aggregates quarrying one of the most controversial rural industries. Despite planning controls over quarrying and improved methods of operation, quarrying can still have a devastating impact on the countryside. Noise, dust and heavy lorry traffic are characteristic during mining operations and too often landscapes are left scarred by extraction. Even when restoration is mandatory and then undertaken, it is seldom - if ever - able to recreate the character of the countryside which was developed over centuries.


In our opinion, it is inappropriate that plans for mineral extraction should be built on society's demand for minerals and driven by driven by statistical forecasts for demand. The environment is too often taken into account only when considering where to quarry, not whether we really need to. The extent of land with plans for quarrying means that in some areas, there are enough sites already secured (the 'land bank') to ensure that quarrying continues for decades. These unused reserves hold billions of tonnes of aggregates - enough to build over hundreds of motorways - and hinder efforts to influence the rate of quarrying and to move towards a more sustainable basis for exploiting natural resources.

CPRE would like to reduce the damage to the countryside from quarrying by encouraging the more efficient use of aggregates and managing demand. We believe this can be achieved through recycling, making greater use of alternatives and reducing waste in construction. We dislike the notion of a narrow 'predict and provide' approach to quarrying. CPRE believes a fundamental overhaul of policies on quarrying is urgently required, so that in future the policies:

* value the whole countryside, its landscape, character and tranquillity by giving clear priority to reducing demand for aggregates, and including targets to steadily reduce the primary extraction of minerals;
* replace the old 'predict and provide' approach to minerals planning with more positive planning policies which use the principles of 'plan, monitor and manage' and environmental capacity assessments to govern where quarrying may be required. Such a change should also promote more sustainable construction techniques which reduce reliance on mineral extraction;
* ensure appropriate economic signals are sent to quarry operators and consumers which reflect the environmental costs of extraction on the countryside and help to break the link between economic prosperity and the consumption of natural resources; and
* achieve the more prudent use of natural resources through reuse, recovery and recycling, use of alternative (including non-aggregate) materials and techniques, and closer integration with land use planning.

Whilst I appreciate that some of but not all these considerations have been taken up by the County Council in the draft Plan and the actions of the Council are constrained by national policy, it is the considerations outlined above that drive some of the points that we do wish to make about the proposed changes to the future sand and gravel provision for Nottinghamshire.

The Plan states at paragraph 3.8 that "within Nottinghamshire the priority is therefore to extend existing sites, in preference to developing new sites, and to encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregates far as possible". This priority has not counted for a great deal, when it has already been cast aside. There are new sites at both Barton-in-Fabis, near Nottingham; and Botany Bay

We wish to comment on each of these sites.

 
Barton-in -Fabis
1. Quarrying on this site would significantly impact on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit which are close -by and on five Sites of Important Nature Conservation one of which would be destroyed altogether.

2. We have concerns about three rights of way passing through countryside between Barton in Fabis and Clifton. It is difficult to see how this access could be protected or suitably managed or how the proposal is in line with Policy DM7: Public Access.

3. 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. We trust that mineral sites selection is not driven by party political consideration, but we cannot help but observe that the County Council's assessment of the sustainability and environmental impact of this site, under a previous administration, resulted in its rejection and exclusion from a previous draft Minerals Local Plan.

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

5. The restoration suggested is not to restore the land to its current state, but to marshland and standing water. Even this is likely to take 10 years to establish, meaning that the area will be unusable for up to 25 years.

6. The issue of "geographical spread" of mineral extraction across the county is not a persuasive reason to establish a new site unless there are overwhelmingly other positive reasons to do so. The fact that a planning application has already been made is not such a reason and it is hard to detect any other reason that justifies giving priority to opening a new site here. The draft plan does not follow its policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" and I do not believe this site is suitable on such a basis in any event.

7. Policy SP7 does state that minerals developments will be supported where the openness of the green belt is preserved, but 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 fact that minerals can be extracted in the green belt hardly seems to be a reason that they should be in this case.






Botany Bay

1. Properties on the southern edge of the village of Barnby Moor will particularly be adversely affected by the quarry, especially if a processing plant is established on site.

2. A feature of the agricultural land here is mature hedgerows and tree belts. These cannot be replaced quickly once any restoration is contemplated.

3. Where the A638 where it crosses the main east coast rail line there are elevated views of a great proportion of the site which cannot be screened.

4. The Chesterfield Canal is, at present, set in a tranquil setting. The quarry will badly affect canal boat users and those walking along the canal path. Whatever screening is proposed is hardly likely to ameliorate these effects to a satisfactory degree.

5. Dewatering of the workings could have an adverse impact upon the stability of the A638 (the Great North Road) and on the East Coast Rail Line (which is, of course, a vital transport link between London and the North of England and Scotland). There is also the possibility that creating more water spots will encourage birds that might endanger the local air traffic.


Finally, we want to make some comments about hydrocarbons and shale gas.


Hydrocarbons and Shale Gas

Paragraph 4.109 of the draft plan states:

"It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development."

The facts are that extraction of gas or oil out of shale rock is very different to getting 'conventional' hydrocarbons out of permeable rock formations which allow gas or oil to flow to a well head from some distance. Shale must be fractured underground using horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This can be done only up to a mile or so from the wellhead, requiring well pads every couple of miles (and repeated fracturing every year or so) - potentially leading to a widespread industrialisation of the landscape. Frankly. It is extremely disappointing that the draft plan does not recognise these plain facts.

Nottinghamshire has large areas which could be fracked for shale gas in the north and south west. The east of the county could be drilled for coal bed methane.

Large parts of the county rest on Sherwood sandstone with aquifers important for drinking water for agriculture. And large areas of Nottinghamshire have been subject to coalmining - with associated instability and subsidence.
As you are aware, IGas has been granted permission to drill at exploratory sites at Misson and Barnby Moor. And Ineos has licences covering around 1,000 square kilometres around the Sherwood Forest area (including almost all the area between Chesterfield and Ollerton and between Mansfield and Sheffield. Ineos have even taken the National Trust to court to force seismic testing across Clumber Park.

We shall be open about our view on shale gas which is that fracking should be halted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the following criteria are met.
* Help secure the radical reductions in carbon emissions required to comply with planning policy and meet legally binding climate change targets;
* Not lead to unacceptable cumulative harm, whether for landscapes or on the English countryside as a whole, and
* Be carefully controlled by effective systems of regulation and democratic planning, which are adequately resourced at both local and national levels.
However, we accept and appreciate that the County Council must proceed in line with government guidelines. That said, there does not appear to be any good reason why the County Council should not set some criteria for its planning approach to shale gas extraction. Would the Council really want to see fracking beneath Clumber Park? Why should the Council not have an established approach to matters such as and including:

* heavy goods vehicle movements and suitable transport links; increased accident risks, and occupational hazards;
* the arrangements for disposal of toxic flowback water;
* measures to protect groundwater - particularly the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer;
* toxic air emissions; and
* seismic activity, particularly in former coalfield areas; and
* particular landscapes.


Yours faithfully

I am writing on behalf of the Nottinghamshire Branch of The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in response to the County Council's consultation on its draft plan.

I want to say, at the outset, that CPRE recognises the need for mineral extraction in Nottinghamshire. However, it also needs to be recognised both by local authorities, the industry and others that the impact of extracting millions of tonnes of aggregates (sand, gravel, and rock) every year on the countryside and local communities can be enormous, both during the operation and afterwards. There is a need to reduce the level of extraction in future by making better use of mineral resources and developing alternatives.

While having some small quarries to meet local needs may be appropriate (such as to provide stone to maintain locally characteristic housing) the size of modern quarries, combined with their location in often sensitive rural environments, makes aggregates quarrying one of the most controversial rural industries. Despite planning controls over quarrying and improved methods of operation, quarrying can still have a devastating impact on the countryside. Noise, dust and heavy lorry traffic are characteristic during mining operations and too often landscapes are left scarred by extraction. Even when restoration is mandatory and then undertaken, it is seldom - if ever - able to recreate the character of the countryside which was developed over centuries.


In our opinion, it is inappropriate that plans for mineral extraction should be built on society's demand for minerals and driven by driven by statistical forecasts for demand. The environment is too often taken into account only when considering where to quarry, not whether we really need to. The extent of land with plans for quarrying means that in some areas, there are enough sites already secured (the 'land bank') to ensure that quarrying continues for decades. These unused reserves hold billions of tonnes of aggregates - enough to build over hundreds of motorways - and hinder efforts to influence the rate of quarrying and to move towards a more sustainable basis for exploiting natural resources.

CPRE would like to reduce the damage to the countryside from quarrying by encouraging the more efficient use of aggregates and managing demand. We believe this can be achieved through recycling, making greater use of alternatives and reducing waste in construction. We dislike the notion of a narrow 'predict and provide' approach to quarrying. CPRE believes a fundamental overhaul of policies on quarrying is urgently required, so that in future the policies:

* value the whole countryside, its landscape, character and tranquillity by giving clear priority to reducing demand for aggregates, and including targets to steadily reduce the primary extraction of minerals;
* replace the old 'predict and provide' approach to minerals planning with more positive planning policies which use the principles of 'plan, monitor and manage' and environmental capacity assessments to govern where quarrying may be required. Such a change should also promote more sustainable construction techniques which reduce reliance on mineral extraction;
* ensure appropriate economic signals are sent to quarry operators and consumers which reflect the environmental costs of extraction on the countryside and help to break the link between economic prosperity and the consumption of natural resources; and
* achieve the more prudent use of natural resources through reuse, recovery and recycling, use of alternative (including non-aggregate) materials and techniques, and closer integration with land use planning.

Whilst I appreciate that some of but not all these considerations have been taken up by the County Council in the draft Plan and the actions of the Council are constrained by national policy, it is the considerations outlined above that drive some of the points that we do wish to make about the proposed changes to the future sand and gravel provision for Nottinghamshire.

The Plan states at paragraph 3.8 that "within Nottinghamshire the priority is therefore to extend existing sites, in preference to developing new sites, and to encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregates far as possible". This priority has not counted for a great deal, when it has already been cast aside. There are new sites at both Barton-in-Fabis, near Nottingham; and Botany Bay

We wish to comment on each of these sites.

 
Barton-in -Fabis
1. Quarrying on this site would significantly impact on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit which are close -by and on five Sites of Important Nature Conservation one of which would be destroyed altogether.

2. We have concerns about three rights of way passing through countryside between Barton in Fabis and Clifton. It is difficult to see how this access could be protected or suitably managed or how the proposal is in line with Policy DM7: Public Access.

3. 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. We trust that mineral sites selection is not driven by party political consideration, but we cannot help but observe that the County Council's assessment of the sustainability and environmental impact of this site, under a previous administration, resulted in its rejection and exclusion from a previous draft Minerals Local Plan.

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

5. The restoration suggested is not to restore the land to its current state, but to marshland and standing water. Even this is likely to take 10 years to establish, meaning that the area will be unusable for up to 25 years.

6. The issue of "geographical spread" of mineral extraction across the county is not a persuasive reason to establish a new site unless there are overwhelmingly other positive reasons to do so. The fact that a planning application has already been made is not such a reason and it is hard to detect any other reason that justifies giving priority to opening a new site here. The draft plan does not follow its policy aim to "Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" and I do not believe this site is suitable on such a basis in any event.

7. Policy SP7 does state that minerals developments will be supported where the openness of the green belt is preserved, but 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 fact that minerals can be extracted in the green belt hardly seems to be a reason that they should be in this case.






Botany Bay

1. Properties on the southern edge of the village of Barnby Moor will particularly be adversely affected by the quarry, especially if a processing plant is established on site.

2. A feature of the agricultural land here is mature hedgerows and tree belts. These cannot be replaced quickly once any restoration is contemplated.

3. Where the A638 where it crosses the main east coast rail line there are elevated views of a great proportion of the site which cannot be screened.

4. The Chesterfield Canal is, at present, set in a tranquil setting. The quarry will badly affect canal boat users and those walking along the canal path. Whatever screening is proposed is hardly likely to ameliorate these effects to a satisfactory degree.

5. Dewatering of the workings could have an adverse impact upon the stability of the A638 (the Great North Road) and on the East Coast Rail Line (which is, of course, a vital transport link between London and the North of England and Scotland). There is also the possibility that creating more water spots will encourage birds that might endanger the local air traffic.


Finally, we want to make some comments about hydrocarbons and shale gas.


Hydrocarbons and Shale Gas

Paragraph 4.109 of the draft plan states:

"It is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development."

The facts are that extraction of gas or oil out of shale rock is very different to getting 'conventional' hydrocarbons out of permeable rock formations which allow gas or oil to flow to a well head from some distance. Shale must be fractured underground using horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This can be done only up to a mile or so from the wellhead, requiring well pads every couple of miles (and repeated fracturing every year or so) - potentially leading to a widespread industrialisation of the landscape. Frankly. It is extremely disappointing that the draft plan does not recognise these plain facts.

Nottinghamshire has large areas which could be fracked for shale gas in the north and south west. The east of the county could be drilled for coal bed methane.

Large parts of the county rest on Sherwood sandstone with aquifers important for drinking water for agriculture. And large areas of Nottinghamshire have been subject to coalmining - with associated instability and subsidence.
As you are aware, IGas has been granted permission to drill at exploratory sites at Misson and Barnby Moor. And Ineos has licences covering around 1,000 square kilometres around the Sherwood Forest area (including almost all the area between Chesterfield and Ollerton and between Mansfield and Sheffield. Ineos have even taken the National Trust to court to force seismic testing across Clumber Park.

We shall be open about our view on shale gas which is that fracking should be halted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the following criteria are met.
* Help secure the radical reductions in carbon emissions required to comply with planning policy and meet legally binding climate change targets;
* Not lead to unacceptable cumulative harm, whether for landscapes or on the English countryside as a whole, and
* Be carefully controlled by effective systems of regulation and democratic planning, which are adequately resourced at both local and national levels.
However, we accept and appreciate that the County Council must proceed in line with government guidelines. That said, there does not appear to be any good reason why the County Council should not set some criteria for its planning approach to shale gas extraction. Would the Council really want to see fracking beneath Clumber Park? Why should the Council not have an established approach to matters such as and including:

* heavy goods vehicle movements and suitable transport links; increased accident risks, and occupational hazards;
* the arrangements for disposal of toxic flowback water;
* measures to protect groundwater - particularly the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer;
* toxic air emissions; and
* seismic activity, particularly in former coalfield areas; and
* particular landscapes.


Yours faithfully

Response to Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Plan

Submitted by SAGE and Shelford Parish Council

Question 1
What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
plan?

We believe that the vision and objectives are clear, straightforward and achievable. In particular we are pleased with the emphasis on minimising transport effects on the environment by choosing sites which are close to forecast demand. Also we appreciate the importance attached to minimising the effect on communities.

Question 2
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy.

Question 3
What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy, in particular the emphasis on extending existing sites.

Question 4
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

We are in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the move towards wetlands as an objective rather than deep cold water lagoons.
We would repeat our previous comment that while accepting that LBAP indicators are the only policy objectives available, there are other issues connected with the loss of farmland habitats and information from wildlife surveys and RSPB red and amber listed birds should be noted.

Question 5
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

We are generally in agreement but note the correlation between flood risk and climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather conditions.
In addition we appreciate the emphasis placed on efficient site operations and minimising transport emissions.

Question 6
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

We are in full agreement with the draft policy and note particularly the recognition that barging up stream to Nottingham may not be economical and that sites should minimise transport distances to main markets.

Question 7
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural
environment?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the requirement that "such planning will have to take account of the impacts of potentially more extreme flood events".
However we are concerned by the statement "Future mineral extraction within high risk areas is unlikely to be avoidable". The consequences of this on communities, either from flooding or from structural flood prevention measures would be enormous and conflicts with the policy of minimising effects on communities.

Question 8
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green
Belt?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 9
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 10
What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?

We support the options chosen. The forecast statistics appear more reasonable in the light of current and foreseeable construction activities.
However we are concerned by the statement "Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated".
We would argue that the same rigour be that has been applied to the Minerals Plan would need to be used in the approval of any additional proposals and that this policy does not allow for a "free for all" development situation.

Question 11
What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

We support the draft policy approach and believe it satisfies many other policy requirements, especially proximity to demand and minimising the impact on communities. In particular it is pleasing to see the bulk of demand being satisfied from existing resources.

Question 12
What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

We agree with the allocations.

Question 13
What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand
over the plan period?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 14
What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

We are in full agreement with this draft policy.


Question 15
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 16
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 17
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 18
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 19
What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over
the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 20
What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.




Question 21
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 22
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local amenity?

This is a critical area and generally we support the provisions. However it is important that proposed site working arrangements are satisfactory before planning approval is given.
In addition we feel more emphasis should be given to health (respiratory) implications of air particulates, especially in the Trent Valley where a funnelling effect may concentrate particulates and thus aggravate health problems for local communities.

Question 23
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM2: Water resources and
flood risk?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy wording and are pleased to see the use of the Sequential Test to direct the choice of sites to those with the least risk of flooding.
We believe this subject to be the most uncertain and variable as to its outcomes and will require the utmost rigour to be applied, particularly with regard to climate change. For instance, when considering proposals for mineral extraction at the very earliest stage, we would emphasise the need to produce an interim flood risk assessment (via an EIA) so that early decisions can be taken on an informed basis, using robust data.
At a more detailed level we question the assumption that the storage of flood-plain water in worked out quarries would not jeopardise existing river-flow patterns.

The intangible cost to communities in terms of flood alleviation schemes and the potential barriers and structures that may be necessary needs to be set against the benefits of extraction.

Question 24
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality?

We accept the inevitability of trading agricultural land for minerals extraction over the medium tem but believe the major effort should be directed towards restoration wherever possible. Following potential political (BREXIT) and climatic problems provision of food should be prioritised over amenity.




Question 25
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?

We agree with this policy but would prioritise protection over creation of habitats.

Question 26
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?

We support this policy. However, we feel it should include reference to the approach to be taken to landscape assessment at the local level when considering specific mineral developments AND the inclusion of the role of local communities in this assessment.

Question 27
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic environment?

We strongly support this policy but would like to see mention made of protecting physical access to archaeological and historic sites in addition to he specific sites themselves.

Question 28
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: Public access?

We support this policy but wonder how the "unacceptable impact" on the existing rights of way will be judged?

Question 29
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM8: Cumulative impact?

We support this policy but the wording could include reference to the potential of future mineral workings in an area, especially as many mineral operators would have long term realistic strategies for an area in addition to specific development proposals.

Question 30
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM9: Highways safety and
vehicle movements/routeing?

We support this policy but in addition to c) "routeing to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities" we would like to see the inclusion of the impact of air quality on local communities arising from routeing and vehicular movements.

Question 31
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM10: Airfield safeguarding?

We support this policy.

Question 32
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM11: Planning obligations?

We strongly support this policy.

Question 33
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use
and aftercare?

We support these policies but would add the following :
Restoration - add 4 d) provide evidence that imported waste would not contaminate water sources or the environment generally.
After-use - add (in 8?) after-use proposals should not cause undue problems or inconvenience for local communities through for example noise, traffic impact, etc.


Question 34
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM14: Incidental mineral
extraction?

We support this policy.

Question 35
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM15: Borrow pits?

We support this policy.

Question 36
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial
development?

We support this policy. We would add the words "but those developments falling outside the GPDO would be subject to planning permission in the normal way"

Question 37
What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM17: Mineral exploration?

We support this policy but would add the words "should be notified to the County Council but would generally" after "Proposals for mineral exploration" and before "be permitted etc".

Response to Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Plan

Submitted by SAGE and Shelford Parish Council

Question 1
What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
plan?

We believe that the vision and objectives are clear, straightforward and achievable. In particular we are pleased with the emphasis on minimising transport effects on the environment by choosing sites which are close to forecast demand. Also we appreciate the importance attached to minimising the effect on communities.

Question 2
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy.

Question 3
What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy, in particular the emphasis on extending existing sites.

Question 4
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

We are in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the move towards wetlands as an objective rather than deep cold water lagoons.
We would repeat our previous comment that while accepting that LBAP indicators are the only policy objectives available, there are other issues connected with the loss of farmland habitats and information from wildlife surveys and RSPB red and amber listed birds should be noted.

Question 5
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

We are generally in agreement but note the correlation between flood risk and climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather conditions.
In addition we appreciate the emphasis placed on efficient site operations and minimising transport emissions.

Question 6
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

We are in full agreement with the draft policy and note particularly the recognition that barging up stream to Nottingham may not be economical and that sites should minimise transport distances to main markets.

Question 7
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural
environment?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the requirement that "such planning will have to take account of the impacts of potentially more extreme flood events".
However we are concerned by the statement "Future mineral extraction within high risk areas is unlikely to be avoidable". The consequences of this on communities, either from flooding or from structural flood prevention measures would be enormous and conflicts with the policy of minimising effects on communities.

Question 8
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green
Belt?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 9
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 10
What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?

We support the options chosen. The forecast statistics appear more reasonable in the light of current and foreseeable construction activities.
However we are concerned by the statement "Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated".
We would argue that the same rigour be that has been applied to the Minerals Plan would need to be used in the approval of any additional proposals and that this policy does not allow for a "free for all" development situation.

Question 11
What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

We support the draft policy approach and believe it satisfies many other policy requirements, especially proximity to demand and minimising the impact on communities. In particular it is pleasing to see the bulk of demand being satisfied from existing resources.

Question 12
What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

We agree with the allocations.

Question 13
What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand
over the plan period?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 14
What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

We are in full agreement with this draft policy.


Question 15
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 16
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 17
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 18
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 19
What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over
the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 20
What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Response to Nottinghamshire County Council's Draft Minerals Plan

Submitted by SAGE and Shelford Parish Council

Question 1
What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
plan?

We believe that the vision and objectives are clear, straightforward and achievable. In particular we are pleased with the emphasis on minimising transport effects on the environment by choosing sites which are close to forecast demand. Also we appreciate the importance attached to minimising the effect on communities.

Question 2
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy.

Question 3
What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy, in particular the emphasis on extending existing sites.

Question 4
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?

We are in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the move towards wetlands as an objective rather than deep cold water lagoons.
We would repeat our previous comment that while accepting that LBAP indicators are the only policy objectives available, there are other issues connected with the loss of farmland habitats and information from wildlife surveys and RSPB red and amber listed birds should be noted.

Question 5
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

We are generally in agreement but note the correlation between flood risk and climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather conditions.
In addition we appreciate the emphasis placed on efficient site operations and minimising transport emissions.

Question 6
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

We are in full agreement with the draft policy and note particularly the recognition that barging up stream to Nottingham may not be economical and that sites should minimise transport distances to main markets.

Question 7
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural
environment?

We are generally in agreement with the draft policy and approve of the requirement that "such planning will have to take account of the impacts of potentially more extreme flood events".
However we are concerned by the statement "Future mineral extraction within high risk areas is unlikely to be avoidable". The consequences of this on communities, either from flooding or from structural flood prevention measures would be enormous and conflicts with the policy of minimising effects on communities.

Question 8
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green
Belt?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 9
What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 10
What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?

We support the options chosen. The forecast statistics appear more reasonable in the light of current and foreseeable construction activities.
However we are concerned by the statement "Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated".
We would argue that the same rigour be that has been applied to the Minerals Plan would need to be used in the approval of any additional proposals and that this policy does not allow for a "free for all" development situation.

Question 11
What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

We support the draft policy approach and believe it satisfies many other policy requirements, especially proximity to demand and minimising the impact on communities. In particular it is pleasing to see the bulk of demand being satisfied from existing resources.

Question 12
What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

We agree with the allocations.

Question 13
What do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock demand
over the plan period?

We are in agreement with this policy.

Question 14
What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

We are in full agreement with this draft policy.


Question 15
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 16
What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

We are in agreement with the allocation.

Question 17
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for silica sand over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 18
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for Industrial dolomite over the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 19
What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over
the plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Question 20
What do you think of the draft policy relating to meet demand for coal over the
plan period?

We are in agreement with the policy.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Draft Plan consultation. Historic England has addressed only the key questions on matters which are likely to affect the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.


Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?

Historic England welcomes the inclusion of a strategic objective relating to the historic environment (SO7). However, the existing list of assets does not make provision for Conservation Areas, battlefields e.g. Stoke Field near Newark and does not acknowledge the candidate World Heritage Site at Cresswell Crags. Rather than include a list of assets, it is recommended that it be replaced with the following text at the second sentence of SO7 in the interests of soundness:

Ensure designated and non-designated heritage assets (archaeological, historic buildings, settlements, landscapes, parks and gardens)and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.

Q2 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Historic England supports the approach of Draft Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development.

Q3 - What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision

Historic England supports the general approach of Draft Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision. We would query whether point c) of the strategy is required since any development on non-allocated sites would be addressed through draft Policy SP1 and relevant draft development management policies. As such we are of the view that this point is duplication and not necessary for the effective implementation of the Plan.

Q5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?

The requirement of Draft Policy SP4 - Climate Change to minimise the impact of minerals operations on climate change is supported.

Q6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

The requirements of Draft Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport are welcomed. Increases of road traffic, particularly large goods vehicles, can detrimentally affect the use of, and sense of place of, the historic environment whether a designated or non-designated heritage asset.

Q7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

Draft Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment requires consideration of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting along with other cultural assets and this is welcomed. However, we note that the first paragraph of Policy SP6 refers to adverse environmental impacts being acceptable subject to two caveats.

Firstly, if 'an overriding need' for development can be demonstrated. This does not reflect NPPF requirements for heritage assets which would need to demonstrate that public benefits of development outweigh the harm. An 'overriding need' would not necessarily imply a public benefit in every case. This should be addressed through amended and/or additional wording within the policy to address national policy requirements in respect of the historic environment.

Secondly, the policy, as currently worded, would allow for unacceptable adverse impacts on the built, historic and natural environment if 'any impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated for.' It is not appropriate to have a blanket policy referring to compensation alongside mitigation. Compensatory measures are referred to in NPPF para.152 which clearly sets out that compensatory measures should be a last resort.

Compensatory measures may be appropriate in respect of the natural environment, e.g. in the sense of translocation, but are not usually applicable to the historic environment since heritage assets and/or their setting are a finite resource. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on understanding what the asset is, the impact the proposal will have, and how best to conserve in light of the fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable. Historic England would, therefore, look to encourage sustainable development where all strands can be taken forward jointly and simultaneously in accordance with NPPF requirements.

As such, the 'mitigated and/or compensated for' element of the draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF and would also be at odds with the general thrust of the NPPF regarding sustainable development.

To overcome this matter it is recommended that there be separate strategic policies for the natural environment, and historic and built environment.

Supporting Paragraph 3.54 refers to a 'recent research project' and it is recommended that a reference/link to this is provided as a footnote.

Supporting Paragraph 3.55 refers to local stone quarrying and local distinctiveness. Since the strategic policy does not refer to local building stone requirements the text at Para 3.55 does not fit with the policy content and it would be worth considering including a cross reference to the later policy in the Plan (currently MP10).

Supporting Paragraph 3.56 refers to potential harm to heritage assets needing to be proportionate but does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm. It is recommended that additional text is included in relation to this whether the policy is split to separate the historic and built environment from the natural environment or not.

Q8 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

Historic England has no comments to make on this policy subject to any supporting development management policies adequately addressing the conservation or enhancement of the historic environment in the document as it progresses through the Plan process.

Q9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?

The approach to avoiding sterilisation of minerals is welcomed in general since it could ensure the provision of building stone in line with the suggestion of Para.3.55 and Policy MP10 of the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that Historic England supports extraction at all of the areas shown as being safeguarded on the plan.



Q11 what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?

Bawtry Road West (MP2l)

There is archaeological potential (Roman) based on previous findings in the locality, and potential setting impact on heritage assets at Austerfield and Misson.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

A typographical error in the Plan at Para 4.29 - MP2k should read MP2l to relate to Bawtry Road West.


Scrooby Thompson Land (MP2m)

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Scrooby North (MP2n)

It is not clear from the development brief information whether there is likely to be any non-designated archaeology and, if so, how this would be dealt with at this stage of the Plan and moving forward.

Langford Lowfields South and West (MP2o)

Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Scheduled Monument Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument could considerably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Historic England has advised on impacts upon the scheduled Roman Camp at Langford through planning applications. Issues around direct dewatering risk to the buried remains have been addressed through borehole investigations under SMC (already dewatered). Considerations of setting impact assessments and discussions relating to trial trenching (archaeological remains also form part of setting) pertaining to development proposals should be taken into account as the Plan progresses.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.


Langford Lowfields North (MP2p)

The Collingham Conservation Area and listed buildings including the setting of GI listed Church of St John the Baptist will need to be taken into account as acknowledged in the Appenix 3 draft development brief.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. Separate bullet points highlight 'high archaeological potential to be managed through appropriate survey methods' and the 'high potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should also be set out in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt.

East Leake North (MP2q)

There is a very high potential for buried remains dating to the early medieval here. Any allocation would (and with reference to the last consent at East Leake) need to frame a sophisticated process of investigation and the likelihood that nationally important remains may be found and would need to be preserved in situ. It is not clear how this has been considered during the Plan process since the Appendix 3 draft development brief sets out only that 'high archaeology potential (is sic) to be managed through appropriate survey methods'. A separate and later bullet point relates to potential impact on Conservation Areas and listed buildings.
As with other sites above, it is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application.

Botany Bay (MP2r)

The northern part of the site sits within a larger area where an Iron Age or Roman co-axial field system is visible as cropmarks on air photographs. The ditched field system is extensive and has groups of smaller enclosures associated with it. There is also the impact on Chesterfield Canal to consider and the impact on the setting of Ranby Hall, Babworth Park and the GI listed Church of St Bartholomew at Sutton cum Lound.

It is noted that the Appendix 3 site allocation development brief indicates some of these should be considered as part of any planning proposal along with natural environment elements. A separate bullet point highlights the 'potential for the site to contain non-designated archaeology'.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application and this should be clarified in the development brief to ensure that heritage assets are conserved or enhanced.


Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s)

As set out in our scoping response the Grade II registered park to Clifton Hall forms the immediate designed landscape setting to the Grade I listed Clifton hall and Grade I listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and runs close to the proposed extraction area. With the presence of the Clifton Conservation Area and the other listed structures and buildings in the village it appears evident that a detailed assessment of impacts upon these assets is required.

Historic England has provided advice on a development proposal associated with the site allocation as follows:

'I am satisfied that there is a positive contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets as a result of the setting relationship with the application site and the historic estate links. Although the nuances of common land versus open field or allocations to cottagers would bear some refinement in the report it appears a sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship. As such the impact of the quarry can reasonably be regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through the loss to the character of their historic landscape context.'

The advice remains relevant in respect of the proposed site allocation as the site moves forward. It is noted that the Appendix 3 draft development brief does not mention the Conservation Area and listed buildings and these should feature in the matters for consideration.

It is recommended that the historic environment elements are brought together in the development brief for the avoidance of doubt. Appendix 1 sets out application validation and local validation requirements but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.

In terms of the high potential for non-designated archaeology, is the Council satisfied that the anticipated extraction work could take place to the full extent at this stage? If not, there is an issue of soundness in respect of the Plan and it is likely that further investigative work is required as part of the Plan process prior to any allocation.

Furthermore, it is not clear from the development brief information what kind of archaeological investigations and/or WSI etc would be expected as part of an application, other than a metal detector on a conveyor belt should be used. This should be clarified in the brief for the site if it remains a proposed allocation.


Q12 - What do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone allocations?

Bestwood 2 East (MP3e) and Bestwood 2 North (MP3f)

Relevant heritage assets are noted in the Appendix 3 draft development brief for the site but it is not clear from draft development brief information what would be required to be submitted as part of a development proposal. For example, is a heritage impact assessment required to be submitted as part of an application? If so the development brief should set this out clearly.


Q14 - What do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled aggregates?

Historic England welcomes the approach of draft Policy MP5: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates. Amongst others, the policy has the potential to reduce the need for new mineral extraction in some circumstances which, in turn, has the potential to limit impact on the historic environment.

Q15 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for brick clay?

The proposed allocation at Woodborough Lane (MP6c) should consider any archaeological impacts and any relevant matter should be addressed in the Appendix 3 draft development brief.


Q16 - What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?

It is not clear from the draft Plan information how the proposed allocation at Bantycock Quarry South (MP7c) has been considered in relation to the historic environment since the Appendix 3 draft development plan does not refer to heritage assets or their setting. We would want to better understand the significance of the Shire Dyke as an historic landscape feature and integrate links with its natural environment. It is not clear how any archaeological impacts have been considered.

Q18 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over the plan period?

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) has maintained concerns about the dolomite allocation at Holbeck since 2012. It is noted that Policy MP9 relates to industrial dolomite extraction generally. Historic England submits that this approach is not sound since known sources of dolomite within the UK are limited and in respect of the draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan the main extraction location is found in the Holbeck area. As such Policy MP9 in its current form would provide a de facto site allocation. In addition, Policy MP9 sets out that extraction would be supported if need is demonstrated which ignores environmental and other social and economic factors which would have to be considered in the balance. These issues are explored in more detail below.

De facto site allocation in respect of the historic environment

The main site, within the Minerals Local Plan area, for industrial dolomite extraction would be at Holbeck and associated with the existing Whitwell site in Derbyshire. There are heritage assets within this locality including Cresswell Crags and it is not clear how these assets have been considered in the Plan process.

Creswell Crags straddles the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The complex of caves and rock shelters preserve long sequences of in-situ deposits. First identified in the nineteenth century, the site has yielded Neanderthal and modern human material alongside faunal remains and palaeo-environmental data across successive periods of Ice Age occupation between 10000 and 50000 years ago. The discovery of the UK's only cave art assemblage in 2003 alongside the site's established archaeological importance at the northerly extreme of Ice Age human habitation set the basis for Creswell Crags placement on the UK Government's Tentative List of potential UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in 2012. Creswell Crags are an exceptional complex set of cultural assets. In very broad terms, key elements in their significance can be summarised as follows:

* They possess rare long sequences of well preserved in-situ archaeological deposits as well as the associated resource of material excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

* There is particular archaeological importance for the Middle Palaeolithic (around 44000 years ago) as a site of Neanderthal activity and in the Late Upper Palaeolithic as the type site for Creswellian dwelling and resource exploitation at around 14000 years ago, in both cases at the northern limits of human habitation.

* The artistic and archaeological significance in their containing Britain's only, and Europe's most northern, example of Palaeolithic Cave Art.

Any nomination of Creswell Crags for inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List is likely to include a buffer zone as advised by UNESCO. The purpose of a buffer zones is to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of a WHS. UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (July 2015) go on to say that a Buffer Zone " is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection." This would have implications for any extraction activities as well as traffic movements to the Whitwell plant, which would use the A616 through Cresswell Conservation Area. The Minerals Plan should take into account the potential for Creswell Crags to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with an associated buffer zone, and have full regard to NPPF paragraph 132 guidance that harm to significant heritage assets, and their settings, should be wholly exceptional.

The Crags also form part of the Welbeck Registered Park and Garden (Grade II). Humphry Repton's inclusion of the sublime natural form of the Crags into the designed landscape of the Grade I listed Welbeck Abbey and the subsequent damming of the gorge to create a water-fowling lake provide additional layers of historic landscape significance. It is also partially within the Creswell Conservation Area.

Heritage impacts arising from the extraction of dolomite in this location are considered to be two-fold. Firstly, the dolomite resource area occupies the southern end of the magnesian limestone ridge through which the Creswell gorge passes. The existing quarry workings to the north severs the monument from the ridge leaving the proposed allocation area to the south as the sole opportunity to experience and understand the monument in something of its late Pleistocene landscape context. Neither Neanderthal nor Late Upper Palaeolithic populations were simply huddled in gorges and caves enclosed from their environment, they were also up on the ridges above working flint and hides and looking out across extensive steppe grassland (as demonstrated in recent and current excavations in Rutland and Leicestershire. The lives of hunter gather peoples were, we believe, intimately associated with the seasonal movements of large mammals and birds through the landscape in which they operated (as supported by the cave art at Creswell). The ability to experience this monument in its extant landscape context (as well as within the enclosed space of the gorge) is central to its significance.

Secondly, there are a number of significant unknown impacts which may give rise to further harm. Specifically, the proposed allocation area has unexplored potential for finds assemblages surviving both in topsoil and in-situ below hill wash or in fissures. Caves containing archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains potentially extend at depth beyond the Scheduled Monument boundary on this southern side of the gorge and would be vulnerable both to the proposed working and associated vibration. It is also proposed to process the mineral through the existing workings at Whitwell in order to utilise the existing infrastructure. The resulting haulage of mineral from the extraction site to the kilns via either the existing transport network, or new corridors through the landscape are likely to cause additional harm. It is anticipated that any future restoration of the quarry site is likely to be water based, which could also have unknown implications for the scheduled cave network and would not reinstate topographic form.

Historic England considers that the likely impact of dolomite extraction at the Holbeck site would constitute substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets of the highest importance contrary to the provisions and intentions of the NPPF. On that basis, Policy MP9 is not sound.

It is also noted that the justification text states that there is no national demand forecast or local apportionment for dolomite. It also states that the resource supplies an international market. However, there is no associated evidence base to support the 'international' importance of industrial dolomite provision in the UK. Such uncertainty clearly highlights that there is insufficient information available on which to determine impact and further evidence base work and assessment is required.


Q19 - What do you think to the draft policy to meet demand for building stone over the plan period?

Historic England welcomes the approach to the provision of building stone. The policy provisions would potentially assist with heritage repairs and ensuring local distinctiveness.


Q20 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for coal over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns with the proposed approach in respect of the demand for coal as set out in draft Policy MP11: Coal.


Q21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?

Historic England has no concerns to raise in respect of the proposed approach to hydrocarbon minerals as set out in draft Policy MP12: Hydrocarbons.


Q27 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: Historic Environment?

Historic England has concerns in relation to the wording of draft Policy DM6 and considers it not to be sound at this time. Criteria a) refers to 'adverse impact' rather than harm and Criterion b) and c) refer to 'harm or loss' and the mitigation of loss against public harm. The draft policy is not in accordance with the stepped approach advocated in the NPPF.

As a separate matter, the draft Policy is not worded positively and it is recommended that this be reviewed prior to the next iteration of the Plan. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss this in due course.

Q33 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?

Historic England welcomes the provisions set out for the historic environment in draft Policy DM12.


Conclusion

Finally, we would like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. We would be pleased to meet with you, prior to the next iteration of the Plan, to discuss the matters raised and I will be in contact with you in due course to arrange a meeting.

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

Dear Sir/Madam
Nottinghamshire Draft Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for consulting Rushcliffe Borough Council on the Draft Minerals Local Plan and supporting Draft Minerals Local Plan Interim Sustainability Report. Having read the documents, please accept the following responses to selected questions which are pertinent to minerals developments in Rushcliffe.
Draft Minerals Local Plan
Q1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) broadly supports the overarching vision and welcomes the additional paragraph which requires mineral developments are designed, located and operated to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised.
However, as stated within our previous representation on the Issues and Options Minerals Local Plan, the vision should not prioritise proximity to major markets, growth areas and sustainable transport nodes over other considerations. Whilst the proximity of the resource to the market is important, the location of minerals development should also consider environmental constraints (including impacts on the natural environment and local communities). Consequently the second paragraph should read:
"Within geological and wider environmental constraints, minerals development will be concentrated in locations that offer..."
When telephoning, please ask for :
John King
Telephone no :
0115 9148257
Email:
jjking@rushcliffe.gov.uk
Our Reference :
950.0
Your Reference :
Date :
27 September 2018
Furthermore, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (avoid, mitigate and last resort compensate), the plan should prioritise sites that avoid adverse impacts on the environment rather than mitigate or compensate through appropriate working, restoration and after-use. The fourth paragraph should read:
"All minerals workings will contribute towards a 'greener Nottinghamshire' by ensuring that the County's diverse environmental and historic assets are protected, maintained and enhanced through the sensitive selection of minerals sites, appropriate working, restoration and after use."
Q2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Policy SP1 and the supporting text should be amended to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the revised NPPF (2018). Specifically Part 3 of the policy and part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
Q3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
RBC supports the prioritisation of extending existing sites as set out in Policy SP2 part 1) b) and the need in Part 2 to demonstrate that the avoidance of adverse social, economic and environmental impacts have been prioritised. The Council is not convinced however that these requirements have been equally applied to the selection of the mineral allocations, specifically the selection of MP2s Mill Hill as this is a new sand and gravel quarry which the SA, identifies as being significantly constrained by a wide range of environmental issues (landscape and visual amenity, biodiversity, flood risk, agricultural land and degraded air quality). It is also in close proximity of Barton in Fabis.
Q4: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
RBC supports the prominence and importance given to restoration within the draft plan and Policy SP3 in particular. The specific reference to the Local BAP and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Project is welcomed, however the justification does not include an explanation of the mapping project and how it should be used to inform restoration. Rather the text refers to landscape scale restoration, National Character Areas and priority habitats which the opportunity mapping project brings together.
Q8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
RBC welcomes policy SP7and its supporting justification which highlights the need to consider the impact of infrastructure, which is required to extract the mineral, upon the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, the policy (or supporting justification) should ensure that if the openness is harmed during operation and restoration, this is inappropriate and can only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Harm to the Green Belt's openness should be given substantial weight, and development should only be permitted if this harm to openness, Green Belt purposes and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. These considerations will include the need for the mineral, the existence of alternative sources outside
the Green Belt, and the measures undertaken to reduce the harm to the Green Belt and its purposes.
This approach should be applied and explained where allocations are proposed in the Green Belt.
Q10: What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?
RBC supports the identified levels of demand and subsequent provision of minerals (within Policy MP1) based on the Local Aggregates Assessment average 10 year data and the provision of 7 year land bank for sand and gravel and sandstone, or 10 years land bank for crushed rock. This approach complies with the NPPF.
Q11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
East Leake North - MP2q
The extension of the existing sand and gravel quarry at East Leake is not opposed in principle. This however is subject to the maintenance of the existing hydrological conditions that maintain the water levels of Sheepwash Brook and the condition of the Local Wildlife Sites to the South of Sheepwash Brook.
Mill Hill - MP2s
RBC has serious concerns regarding the proposed sand and gravel allocation at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s).
Green Belt and Landscape Impacts
As the site is within the Green Belt, and would require significant infrastructure to transport the mineral up Mill Hill to the loading area adjacent to Green Street, there is likely to be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the Green Belt purpose which safeguards the countryside from encroachment. This concern is confirmed by the landscape appraisal of the allocation, which according to the SA and Site Assessment Methodology document determines the landscape impacts to be very negative. Post-restoration, the landscape impacts are considered to remain very negative.
Loss of Rights of Way and Impacts on Visual Amenity
Impacts on visual amenity are exacerbated by the number of rights of way that cross the site, including a bridleway and footpath to Barton in Fabis. The diversion of these routes and the enjoyment of them will be significantly affected whilst the quarry is in operation. The Trent Valley Way, an important regional trail, is on the opposite bank of the River Trent, within the Attenborough Nature Reserve. The enjoyment of this route is also likely to be affected.
Impacts on Nature Conservation Assets
Located within the Trent Valley, the site includes or is immediately adjacent to the Barton Flash Local Wildlife Site (LWS), Barton Pond and Drain LWS, Brandshill Wood LWS, Brandshill Grassland LWS and Brandshill Marsh LWS. It is also in close proximity to Attenborough Gravel
Pits and Holme Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest, and several more LWSs including Clifton Fox Covert, Burrows Farm Grassland and Clifton Wood. Whilst restoration would include the creation of 62ha of priority habitat, the SA Report concludes that the allocation would still involve an overall reduction in BAP habitat and the loss and degradation of a number of LWSs and features used by protected species. The overall net reduction in priority habitat is a significant constraint.
Concerns regarding the surveys of protected and priority species have been raised, specifically Barn Owls which nest in the vicinity of the site. Given the known presence of this species, further surveys should be undertaken to establish the importance of the site for this species and whether breeding birds or their young would be disturbed (which is contrary to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).
Where such ecological impacts occur, in accordance with paragraph 175 of the NPPF, the 'mitigation hierarchy' should be applied. This favours avoidance (alternative sites) rather than mitigation or compensation (as is occurring here through restoration) as a last resort. If compensation would not avoid significant harm (as is the case with this allocation), the NPPF permits the refusal of development. As such the direct loss of LWS should be avoided and adequate avoidance and mitigation measures (such as buffers) put in place to ensure LWS and SSSIs in the vicinity are not adversely affected by noise, dust or changes in ground water quality and levels.
Transportation of Mineral
Whilst the site is located in close proximity of Nottingham, a significant local market for sand and gravel, and can easily access the M1 (via the A453), the quarried material from Mill Hill will be transported by road only. This conflicts with draft Policy SP5 part 1 which states that all mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. Given the site's location adjacent to the River Trent, and notwithstanding the increased disturbance to the river environment and neighbouring nature reserve, the transportation of the mineral by road clearly conflicts with this policy. Regarding the SA, we do not agree that the transportation by road should be scored +1 (slightly positive) against the 3rd SA Objective which promotes sustainable patterns of movement and the use of sustainable modes of transport. This should be neutral, as the location close to markets is negated by the transportation by HGVs.
Impacts on Air Quality
The transportation by road and generation of dust raise air quality concerns, and the cumulative impact of this allocation and the adjacent Clifton Pastures employment and housing strategic urban extension must be considered. SA objective 11 seeks to protect and improve air quality, however the SA Interim Report's assessment of Mill Hill (on page 131) does not examine the types and levels of pollution generated (only the number of lorry movements) and there is no considerations of cumulative effects with the neighbouring strategic urban extension. The only mitigation measures proposed is dust suppression.
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by air quality assessments. These assessments should consider the air quality impact as a result of operations including land movements, extraction of sand and gravel. As well as the impact on vehicle movements arriving and leaving the sites, this assessment should reference the IAQM guidance on Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning 2016 as well as LAQM Technical Guidance (TG16). The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Noise and Vibration
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by noise and vibration assessments. These assessments should be in line with MPG 11 - control of noise at surface mineral workings. The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Contaminated Land
Due to the potential for land surrounding the areas of mineral works being highlighted as potentially contaminated land I would recommend that at least a Phase 1 desk top study is submitted with any application to determine whether a source - receptor pathway exists.
Cumulative Effects
Given the proximity of the Clifton Urban Extension, other cumulative effects should also be considered within the SA.
Impacts on Local Residents
In addition to environmental impacts, the SA recognises that the site is in close proximity to settlements, especially Barton in Fabis which is approximately 130m to the south and west, and that during the operational phase there could be an adverse effect resulting from noise, dust and traffic. In terms of visual amenity, there would be a significant adverse change to views for residents on the northern edge of Barton in Fabis with windows facing the site and riverside properties to the eastern edge of the River Trent. It concludes that the allocation would have a very negative adverse effect on the SA's 14th objective which requires the protection and improvement of human health and quality of life.
Sustainability Appraisal
Overall the allocation has a negative effect on 8 of the 14 SA objectives (4 of which are very negative) and only scored positively against those objectives that other sites would equally perform positively against (meeting mineral needs and local employment). Only the allocation's close proximity to the A453 and Nottingham are unique to this site and this appears to have led to the site's allocation.
Paragraph 7.10 of the SA Interim Report states that twenty sand and gravel sites were assessed and it was found that those which scored most negatively in the operational period included Barton-in-Fabis (Mill Hill). This is a consequence not only of the issues above, but the site's location within flood zone 3, impact on the historic environment, loss of agricultural land, and loss of water quality (all of which result in a negative assessment in the SA). Furthermore the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity Study 2014, which has informed the SA, identifies the site as being High Environmental Sensitivity ('Red').
The negative impacts identified within the SA Interim Report have been recognised within the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment which justifies the allocation of the site (page 55). It states that:
"...whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, these become slight negative impacts in the long term. Taking
account of the contribution of this site to the provision of minerals in the Nottingham area, it is considered appropriate to include the proposal as an allocation in the Draft Minerals Plan."
RBC accepts that there should be geographical spread of minerals to meet needs across the county and beyond, however, given the significant adverse effects upon the environment and local community of Barton in Fabis, and the site's location within the Green Belt (which protects openness and Green Belt purposes), a detailed comparison of potential allocations within the Nottingham Area and appropriate weighting of the sites benefits and adverse effects is required in order to justify this site
Finally, the trajectory of mineral extraction from Mill Hill indicates that this will commence in 2019. This appears ambitious given that the submitted application has not yet been determined.
Q16: What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?
RBC supports policy MP7 and the retention of the Marblaegis Mine as a permitted site for Gypsum.
Development Management Policies
The last sentence of paragraph 5.4, which addresses EIAs, ends abruptly and the following page repeats Policy MP11 coal.
Q25: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
The wording of Part 1 a) should be amended as it refers to 'likely significant adverse effects on the integrity' of a European site. The Habitats Regulations however seek to prevent 'adverse effects on integrity', not 'likely significant adverse effects on integrity'. The assessment of 'likely significant effects' is undertaken as part of the HRA screening to determine whether an appropriate assessment of possible adverse effects is required
'Mitigated' should be changed to 'compensated'. Fully mitigated would imply adverse effects have been avoided/addressed, if so there are no adverse effects and development can proceed. If adverse effects cannot be avoided or mitigated, and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) are proven, compensation, not mitigation for the harm/loss must be provided.
Part b should be amended to reflect the NPPF which states that development likely to have an 'adverse effect' (not 'significant adverse effect') should not normally be permitted. This provides greater protection for SSSIs as any adverse effect on the interest of the site would be weighed against the benefits of the scheme, not just significant effects. The policy should also refer to the impacts on the network of SSSIs as whole, not just individual sites.
Part 3 c) should refer to the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Paragraph 5.46 should be amended to reflect the requirements of the habitats regulations - adverse effect on integrity - not significant effects (see comments above).
Paragraph 5.52 addresses effects on priority habitats and species, but has confused priority habitats as referred to in the Government circular 06/2005 (which covers European Sites that are priority habitats) and priority habitats within the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (which covers local habitats). The later receives less protection than the former and does not require agreement from the European Commission that imperative reasons of overriding public interest exist.
Q26: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
If harmful impacts can be mitigated then it is demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on character and distinctiveness. Consequently there would be no requirement for further mitigation. Policy DM5 should be amended as follows:
"Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on the character and distinctiveness of the landscape unless there is no available alternative and the need for development outweighs the landscape interest and the harmful impacts can be adequately mitigated;"
Supporting justification should require avoidance and mitigation measures where a development will have adverse impacts on character and distinctiveness. If these measures do not prevent residual adverse effects, then the assessment of alternative options and weighting of adverse impacts against the benefits of the proposal are engaged.
Policy DM5 Part 2 should be amended as follows:
"Mitigation and compensation measures that comprise landscaping, planting and restoration proposals should take account of the relevant landscape character policy area as set out in the Landscape Character Assessments covering Nottinghamshire and, where appropriate, the output of the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report."
Q28: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: Public access?
As a number of allocated sites and mineral reserves are in the Green Belt, the supporting justification for DM7 should cross refer to, and reflect, national Green Belt policy which states LPAs should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as the provision of access, opportunities for sport and recreation, enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.
Q33: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?
RBC supports the restoration policy. However, the supporting justification should refer to the delivery of the priority habitats and opportunity areas within the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Q37: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial development?
The supporting text should cross refer to Green Belt policy and explain that associated industrial developments are inappropriate within the Green Belt and that very special circumstances must be proven to exist in order to grant planning permission for these ancillary/associated activities.
We look forward to reviewing the next iteration of the Minerals Local Plan and supporting SA in due course.
This concludes Rushcliffe Borough Council's representation.
If you would like to discuss our comments on the emerging plan, please feel free to contact me.
Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir/Madam
Nottinghamshire Draft Minerals Local Plan
Thank you for consulting Rushcliffe Borough Council on the Draft Minerals Local Plan and supporting Draft Minerals Local Plan Interim Sustainability Report. Having read the documents, please accept the following responses to selected questions which are pertinent to minerals developments in Rushcliffe.
Draft Minerals Local Plan
Q1: What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) broadly supports the overarching vision and welcomes the additional paragraph which requires mineral developments are designed, located and operated to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised.
However, as stated within our previous representation on the Issues and Options Minerals Local Plan, the vision should not prioritise proximity to major markets, growth areas and sustainable transport nodes over other considerations. Whilst the proximity of the resource to the market is important, the location of minerals development should also consider environmental constraints (including impacts on the natural environment and local communities). Consequently the second paragraph should read:
"Within geological and wider environmental constraints, minerals development will be concentrated in locations that offer..."
When telephoning, please ask for :
John King
Telephone no :
0115 9148257
Email:
jjking@rushcliffe.gov.uk
Our Reference :
950.0
Your Reference :
Date :
27 September 2018
Furthermore, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (avoid, mitigate and last resort compensate), the plan should prioritise sites that avoid adverse impacts on the environment rather than mitigate or compensate through appropriate working, restoration and after-use. The fourth paragraph should read:
"All minerals workings will contribute towards a 'greener Nottinghamshire' by ensuring that the County's diverse environmental and historic assets are protected, maintained and enhanced through the sensitive selection of minerals sites, appropriate working, restoration and after use."
Q2: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
Policy SP1 and the supporting text should be amended to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the revised NPPF (2018). Specifically Part 3 of the policy and part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
Q3: What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
RBC supports the prioritisation of extending existing sites as set out in Policy SP2 part 1) b) and the need in Part 2 to demonstrate that the avoidance of adverse social, economic and environmental impacts have been prioritised. The Council is not convinced however that these requirements have been equally applied to the selection of the mineral allocations, specifically the selection of MP2s Mill Hill as this is a new sand and gravel quarry which the SA, identifies as being significantly constrained by a wide range of environmental issues (landscape and visual amenity, biodiversity, flood risk, agricultural land and degraded air quality). It is also in close proximity of Barton in Fabis.
Q4: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
RBC supports the prominence and importance given to restoration within the draft plan and Policy SP3 in particular. The specific reference to the Local BAP and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Project is welcomed, however the justification does not include an explanation of the mapping project and how it should be used to inform restoration. Rather the text refers to landscape scale restoration, National Character Areas and priority habitats which the opportunity mapping project brings together.
Q8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?
RBC welcomes policy SP7and its supporting justification which highlights the need to consider the impact of infrastructure, which is required to extract the mineral, upon the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, the policy (or supporting justification) should ensure that if the openness is harmed during operation and restoration, this is inappropriate and can only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Harm to the Green Belt's openness should be given substantial weight, and development should only be permitted if this harm to openness, Green Belt purposes and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. These considerations will include the need for the mineral, the existence of alternative sources outside
the Green Belt, and the measures undertaken to reduce the harm to the Green Belt and its purposes.
This approach should be applied and explained where allocations are proposed in the Green Belt.
Q10: What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?
RBC supports the identified levels of demand and subsequent provision of minerals (within Policy MP1) based on the Local Aggregates Assessment average 10 year data and the provision of 7 year land bank for sand and gravel and sandstone, or 10 years land bank for crushed rock. This approach complies with the NPPF.
Q11: What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
East Leake North - MP2q
The extension of the existing sand and gravel quarry at East Leake is not opposed in principle. This however is subject to the maintenance of the existing hydrological conditions that maintain the water levels of Sheepwash Brook and the condition of the Local Wildlife Sites to the South of Sheepwash Brook.
Mill Hill - MP2s
RBC has serious concerns regarding the proposed sand and gravel allocation at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis (MP2s).
Green Belt and Landscape Impacts
As the site is within the Green Belt, and would require significant infrastructure to transport the mineral up Mill Hill to the loading area adjacent to Green Street, there is likely to be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the Green Belt purpose which safeguards the countryside from encroachment. This concern is confirmed by the landscape appraisal of the allocation, which according to the SA and Site Assessment Methodology document determines the landscape impacts to be very negative. Post-restoration, the landscape impacts are considered to remain very negative.
Loss of Rights of Way and Impacts on Visual Amenity
Impacts on visual amenity are exacerbated by the number of rights of way that cross the site, including a bridleway and footpath to Barton in Fabis. The diversion of these routes and the enjoyment of them will be significantly affected whilst the quarry is in operation. The Trent Valley Way, an important regional trail, is on the opposite bank of the River Trent, within the Attenborough Nature Reserve. The enjoyment of this route is also likely to be affected.
Impacts on Nature Conservation Assets
Located within the Trent Valley, the site includes or is immediately adjacent to the Barton Flash Local Wildlife Site (LWS), Barton Pond and Drain LWS, Brandshill Wood LWS, Brandshill Grassland LWS and Brandshill Marsh LWS. It is also in close proximity to Attenborough Gravel
Pits and Holme Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest, and several more LWSs including Clifton Fox Covert, Burrows Farm Grassland and Clifton Wood. Whilst restoration would include the creation of 62ha of priority habitat, the SA Report concludes that the allocation would still involve an overall reduction in BAP habitat and the loss and degradation of a number of LWSs and features used by protected species. The overall net reduction in priority habitat is a significant constraint.
Concerns regarding the surveys of protected and priority species have been raised, specifically Barn Owls which nest in the vicinity of the site. Given the known presence of this species, further surveys should be undertaken to establish the importance of the site for this species and whether breeding birds or their young would be disturbed (which is contrary to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).
Where such ecological impacts occur, in accordance with paragraph 175 of the NPPF, the 'mitigation hierarchy' should be applied. This favours avoidance (alternative sites) rather than mitigation or compensation (as is occurring here through restoration) as a last resort. If compensation would not avoid significant harm (as is the case with this allocation), the NPPF permits the refusal of development. As such the direct loss of LWS should be avoided and adequate avoidance and mitigation measures (such as buffers) put in place to ensure LWS and SSSIs in the vicinity are not adversely affected by noise, dust or changes in ground water quality and levels.
Transportation of Mineral
Whilst the site is located in close proximity of Nottingham, a significant local market for sand and gravel, and can easily access the M1 (via the A453), the quarried material from Mill Hill will be transported by road only. This conflicts with draft Policy SP5 part 1 which states that all mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. Given the site's location adjacent to the River Trent, and notwithstanding the increased disturbance to the river environment and neighbouring nature reserve, the transportation of the mineral by road clearly conflicts with this policy. Regarding the SA, we do not agree that the transportation by road should be scored +1 (slightly positive) against the 3rd SA Objective which promotes sustainable patterns of movement and the use of sustainable modes of transport. This should be neutral, as the location close to markets is negated by the transportation by HGVs.
Impacts on Air Quality
The transportation by road and generation of dust raise air quality concerns, and the cumulative impact of this allocation and the adjacent Clifton Pastures employment and housing strategic urban extension must be considered. SA objective 11 seeks to protect and improve air quality, however the SA Interim Report's assessment of Mill Hill (on page 131) does not examine the types and levels of pollution generated (only the number of lorry movements) and there is no considerations of cumulative effects with the neighbouring strategic urban extension. The only mitigation measures proposed is dust suppression.
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by air quality assessments. These assessments should consider the air quality impact as a result of operations including land movements, extraction of sand and gravel. As well as the impact on vehicle movements arriving and leaving the sites, this assessment should reference the IAQM guidance on Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning 2016 as well as LAQM Technical Guidance (TG16). The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Noise and Vibration
Any extension to existing quarries or use of new land for sand and mineral extraction should be accompanied by noise and vibration assessments. These assessments should be in line with MPG 11 - control of noise at surface mineral workings. The scope of works should be agreed with officers from Rushcliffe Borough Council before any assessments commence.
Contaminated Land
Due to the potential for land surrounding the areas of mineral works being highlighted as potentially contaminated land I would recommend that at least a Phase 1 desk top study is submitted with any application to determine whether a source - receptor pathway exists.
Cumulative Effects
Given the proximity of the Clifton Urban Extension, other cumulative effects should also be considered within the SA.
Impacts on Local Residents
In addition to environmental impacts, the SA recognises that the site is in close proximity to settlements, especially Barton in Fabis which is approximately 130m to the south and west, and that during the operational phase there could be an adverse effect resulting from noise, dust and traffic. In terms of visual amenity, there would be a significant adverse change to views for residents on the northern edge of Barton in Fabis with windows facing the site and riverside properties to the eastern edge of the River Trent. It concludes that the allocation would have a very negative adverse effect on the SA's 14th objective which requires the protection and improvement of human health and quality of life.
Sustainability Appraisal
Overall the allocation has a negative effect on 8 of the 14 SA objectives (4 of which are very negative) and only scored positively against those objectives that other sites would equally perform positively against (meeting mineral needs and local employment). Only the allocation's close proximity to the A453 and Nottingham are unique to this site and this appears to have led to the site's allocation.
Paragraph 7.10 of the SA Interim Report states that twenty sand and gravel sites were assessed and it was found that those which scored most negatively in the operational period included Barton-in-Fabis (Mill Hill). This is a consequence not only of the issues above, but the site's location within flood zone 3, impact on the historic environment, loss of agricultural land, and loss of water quality (all of which result in a negative assessment in the SA). Furthermore the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity Study 2014, which has informed the SA, identifies the site as being High Environmental Sensitivity ('Red').
The negative impacts identified within the SA Interim Report have been recognised within the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment which justifies the allocation of the site (page 55). It states that:
"...whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, these become slight negative impacts in the long term. Taking
account of the contribution of this site to the provision of minerals in the Nottingham area, it is considered appropriate to include the proposal as an allocation in the Draft Minerals Plan."
RBC accepts that there should be geographical spread of minerals to meet needs across the county and beyond, however, given the significant adverse effects upon the environment and local community of Barton in Fabis, and the site's location within the Green Belt (which protects openness and Green Belt purposes), a detailed comparison of potential allocations within the Nottingham Area and appropriate weighting of the sites benefits and adverse effects is required in order to justify this site
Finally, the trajectory of mineral extraction from Mill Hill indicates that this will commence in 2019. This appears ambitious given that the submitted application has not yet been determined.
Q16: What do you think of the draft site specific allocation for gypsum?
RBC supports policy MP7 and the retention of the Marblaegis Mine as a permitted site for Gypsum.
Development Management Policies
The last sentence of paragraph 5.4, which addresses EIAs, ends abruptly and the following page repeats Policy MP11 coal.
Q25: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM4: Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
The wording of Part 1 a) should be amended as it refers to 'likely significant adverse effects on the integrity' of a European site. The Habitats Regulations however seek to prevent 'adverse effects on integrity', not 'likely significant adverse effects on integrity'. The assessment of 'likely significant effects' is undertaken as part of the HRA screening to determine whether an appropriate assessment of possible adverse effects is required
'Mitigated' should be changed to 'compensated'. Fully mitigated would imply adverse effects have been avoided/addressed, if so there are no adverse effects and development can proceed. If adverse effects cannot be avoided or mitigated, and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) are proven, compensation, not mitigation for the harm/loss must be provided.
Part b should be amended to reflect the NPPF which states that development likely to have an 'adverse effect' (not 'significant adverse effect') should not normally be permitted. This provides greater protection for SSSIs as any adverse effect on the interest of the site would be weighed against the benefits of the scheme, not just significant effects. The policy should also refer to the impacts on the network of SSSIs as whole, not just individual sites.
Part 3 c) should refer to the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Paragraph 5.46 should be amended to reflect the requirements of the habitats regulations - adverse effect on integrity - not significant effects (see comments above).
Paragraph 5.52 addresses effects on priority habitats and species, but has confused priority habitats as referred to in the Government circular 06/2005 (which covers European Sites that are priority habitats) and priority habitats within the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (which covers local habitats). The later receives less protection than the former and does not require agreement from the European Commission that imperative reasons of overriding public interest exist.
Q26: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
If harmful impacts can be mitigated then it is demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on character and distinctiveness. Consequently there would be no requirement for further mitigation. Policy DM5 should be amended as follows:
"Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on the character and distinctiveness of the landscape unless there is no available alternative and the need for development outweighs the landscape interest and the harmful impacts can be adequately mitigated;"
Supporting justification should require avoidance and mitigation measures where a development will have adverse impacts on character and distinctiveness. If these measures do not prevent residual adverse effects, then the assessment of alternative options and weighting of adverse impacts against the benefits of the proposal are engaged.
Policy DM5 Part 2 should be amended as follows:
"Mitigation and compensation measures that comprise landscaping, planting and restoration proposals should take account of the relevant landscape character policy area as set out in the Landscape Character Assessments covering Nottinghamshire and, where appropriate, the output of the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report."
Q28: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: Public access?
As a number of allocated sites and mineral reserves are in the Green Belt, the supporting justification for DM7 should cross refer to, and reflect, national Green Belt policy which states LPAs should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as the provision of access, opportunities for sport and recreation, enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.
Q33: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: Restoration, after-use and aftercare?
RBC supports the restoration policy. However, the supporting justification should refer to the delivery of the priority habitats and opportunity areas within the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report.
Q37: What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM16: Associated industrial development?
The supporting text should cross refer to Green Belt policy and explain that associated industrial developments are inappropriate within the Green Belt and that very special circumstances must be proven to exist in order to grant planning permission for these ancillary/associated activities.
We look forward to reviewing the next iteration of the Minerals Local Plan and supporting SA in due course.
This concludes Rushcliffe Borough Council's representation.
If you would like to discuss our comments on the emerging plan, please feel free to contact me.
Yours faithfully,

Question 11 - what do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
Remaining Permitted Reserves
Sites MP2a (Misson West) and MP2b (Newington South), noted in Policy MP2 1 (a), are sites operated by Hanson.
Permitted reserves at Misson West (MP2a) will soon be exhausted and permitted reserves at Newington South (MP2b) were exhausted in February 2018. Therefore neither of these sites, stated as to provide a combined 420,000 tonnes, will contribute existing permitted reserves towards the new MLP.
However, Policy MP2 1 (a) does not include Hanson's Newington West site as an existing permitted reserve, which was permitted in December 2015 under application reference number 1/15/01020/CDM. The site is currently operational and, as of July 2018, had remaining reserves of approximately 130,000 tonnes. At the current rate of production reserves are anticipated to be exhausted in 2019, again likely to be before the new MLP is formally adopted. A drawing identifying the site is enclosed.
Supply, Site Distribution and Proposed Allocations
Paragraph 4.18 of the draft MLP states the County estimates a shortfall of some 14.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel over the forthcoming plan period. As a result of which Policy MP2 seeks to allocate 6 extensions to existing quarries and 2 new quarries, which total some 15.46 million tonnes of reserve.
On the face of it, these proposed allocations appear to provide sufficient reserves in order to bridge the estimated total shortfall in Nottinghamshire. However, Table 3, Contributions to the sand and gravel shortfall over the plan period, indicates that only 3 of the extension sites and only 1 proposed new site are located within the Idle Valley.
It follows that of the total 15.46 million tonnes of additional reserve proposed for allocation, only 3.41 million tonnes is located at sites within the Idle Valley; an area suitable for viably, and sustainably, supplying sand and gravel to the north of the County as well as the Rotherham and Doncaster areas. The remaining 12.05 million tonnes is split across sites that are better suited to serve the south of the County.
This creates a clear imbalance between the north and the south of the County and their abilities to maintain an adequate supply of reserves in order to supply markets in their localities over the life of the plan, which Hanson believes should be reconsidered in detail.
Indeed, the issues of resource depletion in the Idle Valley and the north of the County, along with the associated impact on the ability to supply the Rotherham and Doncaster markets, are matters discussed at length in the County's most recent Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA), published October 2017.
The County should also recognise impacts further afield, with North Yorkshire County Councils most recent LAA (Third Review, 2017) stating, 'Pressure on NY sand and gravel resources to supply into West and South Yorkshire could also arise through any increasing constraints on supply of sand and gravel from other established supply areas such as the Idle Valley area in northern Nottinghamshire, as identified by Nottinghamshire County Council in their Local Aggregate Assessment, which concludes that resource depletion in the Idle Valley is likely to be the biggest factor potentially influencing exports to South Yorkshire. The Doncaster Local Aggregate Assessment states that South Yorkshire has an adequate supply of sand and gravel in the short term, but further reserves will need to be made available from alternative sources to ensure a steady and adequate supply. It also notes that production of sand and gravel in Nottinghamshire is moving southward away from the Idle Valley, which could impact on supply later on in the plan period. A joint position statement relating to aggregates supply into Doncaster and Rotherham from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire has been completed by the relevant authorities to help safeguard the aggregates supply position.'
Duty to Co-Operate
As mentioned above, in November 2016 a joint minerals position statement was agreed between Nottinghamshire County Council, Rotherham MBC and Doncaster MBC. Amongst other things, Issue 2 of the Statement, which concerns the continued provision of sand and gravel to Rotherham MBC and Doncaster MBC, states 'Historically, a significant amount of sand and gravel has been exported to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council from the Idle Valley in the north of Nottinghamshire. This demand is expected to continue as the Rotherham and Doncaster joint LAA identifies a current lack of permitted sand and gravel quarries in the area along with a significant shortfall expected over the plan period'.
The statement continues by noting, 'As part of the wider discussions between the three authorities a joint aggregate minerals position statement has been prepared. This sets out an agreed approach thatNottinghamshire would continue to contribute to expected demand from the Rotherham and Doncaster areas in the short term'.
The County will no doubt be aware that Doncaster MBC is currently preparing a new Local Plan for the period up to 2032 and that consultation is underway on its various visions, objectives, policies and proposals, which will include policies in respect of minerals. The County is referred to Doncaster MBC's document titled Local Plan Evidence Base, Assessing Mineral Sites Representations, Version: Consultation Draft May 2018, which states: 'Evidence within previous LAAs indicates that it may be difficult for the council to maintain a supply of sand and gravel to meet our apportionment up to the end of the plan period....... Previous monitoring reports and aggregate assessments identify that sharp sand and gravel essential for concreting products is a declining resource in our area and will become increasingly difficult to find in the future. The Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA) identifies minerals flow between authorities and counties and quarries in North Nottinghamshire will in the short term provide sand and gravel to support development in Doncaster. 30% of the sand and gravel extracted in Nottinghamshire is exported to the Yorkshire and Humber region, there is however no additional detail as to how much is consumed in the Doncaster area. The Aggregate Minerals Survey collects monitoring figures as part of a four yearly survey; this survey confirms that in 2009 84% of the sand and gravel landbank was made up of soft sand, which has a small but on-going demand. Paragraph 3.9 of the 2014 Annual Monitoring Report also confirms that that the reserves of sand and gravel in South Yorkshire are almost exclusively made up of soft sand deposits. This has resulted in fewer larger mineral companies coming forward with site representations or extensions to existing quarries.'
This further emphasises the importance of Nottinghamshire's sand and gravel reserves to neighbouring authorities and the need for the County to re-consider the geographical distribution of site allocations in the new MLP; to ensure that the ability to viably supply sand and gravel to the north of the county and neighbouring areas is maintained over the life of the plan.
Barnby Moor
It is clear that the County has sought to favour the allocation of a fewer number of larger potential sites and site extensions in order to maintain supply over the plan period. Whilst the merits of this approach are recognised in the longer term, Hanson considers there is still a need to maintain the immediate supply of reserves during the early years of plan.
The County's October 2017 LAA indicates that Hanson's Newington Quarry currently contributes the equivalent of 16% of the total sand and gravel sales produced by Nottinghamshire sand and gravel quarries. Importantly, the site predominantly serves markets in the north of the County as well as Rotherham and Doncaster.
As previously mentioned, Newington South and Misson West will not contribute to the County's existing permitted reserves during the plan period. Newington West, which is not identified as an existing site in policy MP2, is anticipated to be exhausted prior to adoption of the new plan, so will not contribute either.
As such the contribution Newington currently makes, particularly in providing a much needed supply for the north of the County and neighbouring areas, will be lost if a replacement site does not come online in the early stages of the new plan.
Hanson maintains its view that Barnby Moor represents a viable and deliverable site within the Idle Valley resource block, which can help to maintain the supply of much needed concreting aggregates to the Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire and Doncaster markets. As described, the latter areas depend heavily on imports to meet their construction needs. Given the positive contribution that Barnby Moor would make as a replacement for Newington, Hanson considers this should be reflected by an allocation of the site.
Following Hanson's January 2018 Call for Sites submission, the Council expressed concern over the status of the landownership at Barnby Moor, which is referenced in the Analysis within Table 9, Summary of Key Issues, of the County's Draft site selection methodology and assessment July 2018. The landownership has since been resolved and, as a result, Hanson subsequently wishes to submit a revised proposal for the County to reconsider allocating the site. Full details and plans are enclosed.

Mineral Local Plan Draft Consultation.

INTRODUCTION

In regard to the Issues and Options Consultation, we submitted our views into how sites are chosen due to the unfavourable site choices that had been submitted in the previous MLP.

However, the same sites choices which were in the previous MLP have been re-submitted again in the new MLP Draft Consultation,with the exception of Barnby Moor.

Although Barnby Moor has now been removed from the MLP Draft Consultation, a planning application regarding this site was submitted to the planning department and is still pending, to allow the mineral operators time to come to an agreement on how to work this site.

As Botany Bay and Barnby Moor are under consideration by different departments, if approved, this will result in having two new greenfield sites in the same village, contrary to the preference shown in the Issues and Options Consultation, of choosing extensions to permitted quarries rather than creating new greenfield sites.


In regard to the previous MLP Consultation, a stipulation was made by the Independent Inspector stating no more sites should be chosen from the idle valley.

This stipulation occurred when the Independent Inspector in the 2005 Mineral Local Plan gave approval to permit a quarry to be allocated at Sturton Le Steeple. The decision made by the Independent Inspector stipulated however, that no further sites would be required in the idle valley until the reserves in this site was worked out.

When the site at Sturton Le Steeple was allocated into the MLP, however an objection was made to why Botany Bay had not been allocated, however the inspector reply was, as there were sufficient reserves in the Sturton Le Steeple quarry that no further sites from the idle valley were needed until this quarry had been worked out to prevent an over provision from the area.

The Sturton Le Steeple quarry obtained planning approval in 2008, however in 2011 the mineral operator made a request to the NCC to shelve this quarry stating that the lack of demand for sand and gravel was the reason for their decision and that commercially they would proceed with the application in its entirety when the situation changed.

However, this was contrary to the findings in the LAA report which stated at the time of this request, that sand and gravel was showing an increase in demand, not a decrease, however the request was still approved by the NCC to delay working this quarry.

This was also duplicity on the part of the mineral operator, as at the call for site stage, the mineral operator, submitted the largest number of sites throughout the County into the MLP, including the idle valley, which went against the stipulation that no further sites should be submitted.


This mineral operator has now decided to mothball the Sturton Le Steeple quarry, however he also owns the mineral rights of Girton quarry and has also mothballed this quarry. This quarry's planning permission is up to 2036.


In mothballing sites, it allows the operators to submit more sites into the MLP, however in the previous Mineral Local Plan, it was not considered sound, as it exceeded the permitted reserves, as too many sites were being submitted by the mineral industry without sufficient justification, as there was not a need. However the more sites the mineral operator acquires, the more assets they have.


When mineral operators are allowed to stockpile quarries by mothballing or restricting output, the owness is then put on the less favourable sites, which are then chosen to make up the shortfall. This was cited in the LAA which states the decision to delay working the Sturton Le Steeple quarry was the reason for the shortfall.

In the Consultation Process, the rules are that all parties should accept without objection, the final decision of the Independent Inspector. However that did not happen, due to the mineral operator mothballing the Sturton Le Steeple quarry, he has now submitted his preferred choice of Botany Bay into the Mineral Local Plan Draft Consultation, against the Inspector's stipulation, so in essence it is the mineral operator who has made the final decision.

As the NCC ignored this stipulation, by allowing further sites from the idle valley into the MLP, then we believe justification needs to be demonstrated to why this was allowed.

However this request for information was declined, requesting us to submit our comments into the MLP Draft Consultation.

On these grounds we would like to challenge the decision in allocating further sites into the idle valley for the reasons we have stated. I believe we will be given the opportunity to address this matter to the Secretary of State in the next Consultation Process.

Have Your Say

The MLP Draft Consultation is a complex document which has taken 7 months to complete, and was submitted for us to view on 26th June 2018. However, I do not find this document user friendly, as the individual questions posed, covered policies too diverse to be able to respond with a single reply.

In Question 1, our comments was invited on the strategic objectives and the draft vision, as these objectives covered a range of issues in total, there were nine objectives, then equally it would require 9 responses, and this was just in Question 1.

This approach was applied to every question in the MLP, the reading matter also prior to the question was far too extensive, which added more information and different approaches and elements to the policy, that when you reached the question, it required reading the information again as there were too many issues to respond to.

Due to the reasons above, I believe the presentation of the MLP Draft Consultation does not lend itself in encouraging participation into the consultation process, it actually discourages it.

As these policies are very important, I would prefer to address them in context to the site allocations and to whether they are being applied, to safeguard our communities from adverse effects.

DM8 Cumulative Impact

In regard to the new site allocations selected in the MLP Draft Consultation, there are eight new sand and gravel allocations submitted, and five of those have been chosen from the idle valley. (This includes the sherwood sandstone allocation into the MLP)

However, as the mineral operator has also submitted to the Planning Department a proposal to quarry at Barnby moor, then as this is a foreseeable development and will add to the cumulative impact, then this should have been taken into account when further sites were submitted.

The number of sites under consideration in the idle valley, are six in total, and to which five of these sites, are located on the A638 within a 4mile radius.

As Barnby Moor is under consideration, I have included it in the calculations.

These relate to 2 new greenfield sites, PA01/MP2r one submitted into the MLP Draft Consultation and one submitted into the Planning Department and 4 extensions MP21/ MP2n/ MP2m/ MP3g/

Also in a 2 mile radius off the A638, a permitted development of shale gas extraction at Tinker lane, Torworth where drilling is expected to start October 2018. The proposed quarry at Barnby Moor and nearby residents are in the air quality sensitive receptor zone.

The situation in the idle valley is that we have been given unjustly the lions share of the sites allocations submitted into the Mineral Draft Consultation.

Cumulative Policy

5.95 'as the plan is to ensure that impacts of a mineral proposal are considered in conjunction with the impacts of other past, present or foreseeable developments, in that the cumulative impact on the environment of an area, or on the amenity of a local community are fully addressed'.

The cumulative Impact occurs when over development is allowed to intrude, into the local amenity of those who live and work in those communities.

DM1 Protecting Local Amenity

The actions of protecting local amenity, is not by designating multiple quarries and shale extraction in one location. I would not consider that to be line with the preferred option, of geographical spreading the sites throughout the County, not compacting them all in a four mile radius.

This decision of choosing them all in one location, will have a negative impact on our health and wellbeing and also is contrary to the climate change policy by increasing emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrate oxide into communities where people are living and bringing up their families.

This disregard for human health by allowing mineral operators to site their quarries so close to the community, as created a situation where residents who have previously been happy to live in the area have decided that it is not fair or healthy for their children to be living so close to a site that will omit on a daily basis, dust, noise, fumes from the plant machinery, dangerous gases from the heavy goods vehicles in and out all day.

I believe those that are affected think enough is enough, and If the County Council is failing us, then the decision falls onto to those living in the community to take the decision to leave, and unfortunately that is what is happening.

DM6 Historic Environment
Scrooby MP3g

5.70. National Policy states the most important heritage assets should be conserved and that balancing the need for development against potential harm to heritage assets needs to be fully justified. The Council has a duty to protect, conserve and enhance the significance and appearance of the area's historic environment when carrying out its statutory functions and through the planning system.

As the majority of these sites are located in Scrooby, I was surprised that another extension for Scrooby is to be allocated in 2023.

This site MP3g which is only 1.3km from Scrooby village has 4,831,000m/t of sherwood sandstone, which will be worked over a period of 40 years. This just adds to the burden of increasing pollution into the area, defacing its landscape and affecting biodiversity.

In the assessment of this site, it would have a negative impact on the historic assets as the quarrying operation is 1.3km from Scrooby village and its setting. it also stated that during the operational period there could be a negative effect on the quality of life,

As the National Policy states that the most important assets will be conserved, and the Council states it has a duty to protect, conserve and enhance the appearance of the area's historic environment. As Scrooby is the birth place of William Brewster, one of founders of the Pilgrim Fathers then why is it not being protected.

Sustainable Development
SP1 (NPPF) 'presumption of favour '

This is a policy that is put in place that allows a decision not to be made on evidence or justification, it can be made on presumption of favour, which basically stating it is predetermined in its favour. The meaning of presumption in the dictionary is, a behaviour perceived as arrogant, disrespectful, and transgressing the limits of what is permitted appropriate.

This policy is not appropriate, especially in public office, where you have to show transparency. The mineral industry is a lucrative business, so making decisions in presumption of favour is not appropriate.

If this policy was applied in a Court room and you was told that the judgment was to presume in favour of the Court, you would know instantly that would be an unjust decision, and equally it still applicable in the Consultation Process, when life changing decisions are being made, to adversely change the tranquility of where you live, the air that you breath, your outlook on the landscape and the peacefulness of the countryside. If the policy is presuming in its own favour, then it is predetermining the decision.

This policy uses the term, golden thread in the presumption of favour, however I would say its the golden egg, which benefits the County Council and the mineral industry.

Site Allocations

In the idle valley, we have been subjected to major quarry developments in close proximity of each other, 5 quarries, and a shale gas extraction site, all in a four mile radius.

In view that Barnby Moor is a foreseeable development, then there are six quarries.

This development will change our rural communities from fields of wheat and corn, to noisy dusty sites with increased transport, poor air quality, with an increase in fumes, loss of landscape and character, and will change these pretty hamlets with open fields to become large dust bowls.

This area was rightly assessed as being the worse sites submitted in the County because of the detrimental impact these developments will have on the area if these are approved.

Conclusion

In view that an Independent Inspector had chosen the appropriate site from the idle valley, but his decision was not executed, then we would like to challenge the allocations from the idle valley which have been substituted for this site not being implemented.

Ref: Minerals Local Plan - Besthorpe
Please don not stop quarrying at Besthorpe quarry.
Following my discussion this afternoon with Stephen Pointer and Robert Portman at Collingham, as the project manager for the Trent Vale Trail initiative, please find below my thoughts on the benefits of the quarrying in the Besthorpe area.
The Trent Vale near Collingham has a number of charities working extremely well together with a common objective to create an amazing wetland and wildlife area and support the local economy on the far eastern and often forgotten end of Nottinghamshire.
Two years ago the Sustrans Newark volunteers commenced a project to develop the next phase of the Trent Vale Trail from Collingham to North Clifton. The article below outlines the high-level objectives. Last month we were successful in our fundraising bid (first stage) with the LEADER programme to raise £160,000 for the first phase of this multi-user trail linking Collingham with Besthorpe via the Besthorpe Nature Reserve. One of the key dependencies is that the land on the eastern end of the Besthorpe Nature Reserve (marked with a yellow spot on the map below) would become available to Tarmac who will allow us to build the linking path from Northcroft Lane, Collingham to Trent Lane, Besthorpe. If the decision is made to stop or postpone the planned quarrying in this field we would not be able to deliver this trail. The LEADER programme is a special EU Programme for developing the rural economy which unfortunately will no longer exist from March 2019 as a result of Brexit and hence we will lose this funding opportunity.
The local support for developing the Trent Vale is fantastic. All of the local 6 Parish Councils are supporting us by being part of the "Friends of the Trent Vale Trail" as well as providing financial contributions. Both the RSPB and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust are actively developing this area with large number of volunteers working out there. Tarmac has been extremely pro-active in providing support. The video shows what has already and will be achieved with your support. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j6-YMAlUZc)

As demonstrated in the video we have the full support from Cllr Maureen Dobson who is our project sponsor and also from Tim Deal, Tarmac Site-Manager. Andrew Hindmarsh, on behalf of Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust Besthorpe, is also very keen to make this connection happen to improve access to the nature reserve.
More information what this area will look like in the years to come is clear from the RSPB & Nature after Minerals "Bigger and Better" Newark to South Clifton Concept Plan. The proposed path will link up the many places of interest and natural beauty.
www.rspb.org.uk/Images/futurescapes-newark-to-south-clifton-concept-plan_tcm9-416261.pdf
Preventing the quarrying extension in the field on the eastern end of the Besthorpe Nature Reserve, at a time when real progress is being made to improve tourism into the area, would not benefit the local economy. If required we can provide more information on the proposals and benefits of the work being delivered by the Friends of the Trent Vale Trail, who are very passionate about developing the land into an area of natural beauty and economic benefits.
Because of time constraints of the LEADER funding, a prompt decision to again include this small field is critical now to protect the £160,000 grant.

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan: Objection to Site MP2s, Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis
We are extremely concerned that the above site has been included in the Draft Minerals Local Plan. With so many objections to the site during the planning application consultation, and with the Council's decision on the application still pending, there appears to be no sound justification to include this site. It therefore follows that Policy MP2s is not sound.
Of all the sites, the Councils own assessment shows the above site would suffer the most damage during the operational phase, and in the long term, it is the 3rd most damaged site.
The justification to include the site appears to be in order to offer a geographical spread of sites across the County which has no regard to the impact on the site, the Green Belt, ancient woodlands (protected under the NPPF), rare, and in some cases endangered wildlife and habitats, as well as the sites overall unique locally and nationally important conservation value. The Council has not provided any "wholly exceptional reasons" to include this site as required by the NPPF.
We have previously raised concerns over the potential impact to Holme Pit SSSI, both direct and indirect, and these concerns have not been addressed by the developer throughout this process. The developer originally stated that discharging the quarry water into Holme Pit via the Eastern Drain will improve the SSSI's water quality. When this statement was challenged, it was removed from the potential "benefits" to Holme Pit. We question what other misleading statements there are.
Additionally, the negative impact on leisure and recreational pursuits, walking, cycling and horse riding, angling, bird watching, and simply enjoying the areas peace and tranquillity, cannot be justified either by alleging that the site is more sustainable than other sites in the region or because it is in near to proposed residential developments. What about transporting the materials by barge, which is more sustainable than by road, regardless of distance - there is no mention of selecting sites using this criteria. This is not consistent with the Council's own policy on prioritising sites where transport by river is available, for example Shelford.
For the above reasons, HPAG strongly object to the inclusion of site MP2s in the Draft Minerals Local Plan.