Nottinghamshire County Council

Full text:

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Draft Plan Consultation Representations by Mick George Ltd (MGL)

Suggested additions are in bold; suggested deletions are in strikethrough.

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

1. MGL wishes to comment on the Strategic Object ives . Whilst the aspiration in SO1 to increase the levels of aggregate recycling and the use of alternatives from secondary and recycled sources appears laudable it does not seem to be informed by the conclusions of your own LAA (Oct 2017). This remarks that national estimates suggest that around 80-90% of construction and demolition waste is re-used or recycled (in fact, in 2014 only 4% of mineral wastes in England which comprises 'typically construction materials such as bricks, stone and road planings that are converted into usable aggregates' 1 were landfilled). Moreover, the LAA observes that availability of PFA and FBA is likely to disappear by 2025 . The scope for material changes to the quantities of primary minerals needed for development in these circumstances is very low and the Plan should be realistic about what it can achieve. Since so much has been made by some consultees about the substitution of primary aggregates by secondary aggregates, we think the Council should be more explicit in its conclusion that despite the encouragement to be given to the latter, it will not make much difference to the demand levels of the former.

2. There is also an objective to prioritise the improved use or extension of existing sites before considering new locations. MGL believes this is misguided and contrary to national policy. NPPF contains no such provision, whilst PPG advises that there are cons as well as pros when considering extensions and new sites, and that therefore all proposals should be treated on their merits. Each operator should be allowed to make a case for new working without being hamstrung by a policy bias.
3. MGL therefore opposes both statements in 501 and suggests a rewording,

"Ensure more efficient exploitation and use of primary mineral resources by minimising waste, increasin(j .lev-els of atjtjretjate recyc!in(j ane the use of alternatives from seconeary ane recyc!ee sources. Secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire. Prioritise the imf}rovee use or <Eftension of e-xistin(j sites before consieerin(j new .locations. Make use of sustainable modes of transport.11

4. MGL has identified that there is a conflict between 506 & 508. Good planning is about the reconciling of competing objectives for land, and a good plan will highlight this and propose appropriate policies to manage the conflict. There is a clear potential for conflict between the competing objectives of being a 'restoration to biodiversity' led Local Plan, and one which the long-term potential of best and most versatile agricultural soils, but this is not evident from the Plan. In cases where there is a conflict, MGL proposes that the plan and the strategic objectives should identify this. Accordingly, MGL suggests a rewording of 506,

"Maximise biodiversity gain by creating new habitats at a landscape-scale through mineral restoration schemes which take in to account the Council's priority for biodiversity-led restoration, focusing on priorities set out in the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, in particular meeting reed bed and floodplain grazing marsh targets through sand and gravel restoration schemes, and heathland targets through sandstone restoration schemes, and achieving the targets set out in the Water Framework Directive objectives but only where to do so would not compromise other objectives such as the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils.11

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

5. No comment

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

6. MGL opposes Policy 5P2 - Mineral Provision and in particular part b} of the strategy which is to give priority to the extension of existing sites. Not only is this contrary to national policy and guidance, but it also entrenches an uncompetitive market by nakedly preferring incumbent operators and raising barriers to entry to the local aggregates market to new firms, and it has not been shown to be justified by evidence.

7. PPG paragraph 27-010 specifically states in answer to the question, "Under what circumstances would it be preferable to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than plan for new sites?" that "The suitability of each proposed site, whether an extension to an existing site or a new site, must be considered on its individual merits..." There is therefore no allowance for a policy preference as the Plan seeks to have; all sites must be treated on their merits, and the evidence should be presented to be able to judge whether the comparative merits in each case have been examined. We suggest that the policy preference set out in this policy and explained in paragraph 3.11 is contrary to national policy and guidance and should be removed .

8. Accordingly ,
"Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
1. The strategy for the supply of minerals in Nottinghamshire is as follows:
a) Identify suitable land for mineral extraction to maintain a steady and adequate supply of minerals during the plan period;
b) Give priority to the e-xtension of e-xistiny sites, where economically, socially and environmentally acceptable ;
c) Allow for development on non-allocated sites where a need can be dem onstrated ; and
d) Ensure the provision of minerals in the plan remains in-line with wider economic trends through regular monitoring. "

9. MGL also doubts that the level of provision has been arrived at with due regard to part d) of the strategy since the way the provision has been calculated fails to take account of such wider economic trends.

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

10. MGL objects to Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration and in particular part 1 of the policy which does not clarify sufficiently the potential conflict with the type of restoration sought and the need to preserve the long term potential of best and most versatile soils. Although paragraph 3.23 contains some guidance on what habitats might be created there is no specific allowance for restoration to agriculture where it is necessary to retain the best and most versatile soils. Essentially, MGL is seeking the acknowledgement that agricultural afteruses are still important for the best soils which is conta ine d in paragraph 3.28, for inclusion in the policy to aid clarification of potentially conflicting objectives.

11. Accordingly ,
"Policy SP3 - Biodiversity-Led Restoration
1. Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Project will be supported . Best and Most Versatile Soils may be returned to an agricultural afteruse in appropriate cases.11

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

12. No comment

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

13. Whilst the objective of the policy is laudable there are two considerations which are either not clear, or have been missed.

14. Firstly, if the preference for extensions and their claimed lack of environmental impact is partly based on the availability of infrastructure or potential for barge transport, and this is a major consideration in the choice of a site for inclusion in the plan, then MGL considers that such transport ought to become mandatory for a proportion of the proposed development, otherwise it vitiates the reason for the choice of the site. Such considerations are already part of the minerals policy of the Yorkshire Dales National park, which requires a certain proportion of quarry output to be transported by rail (negotiable) and MGL considers the same type of policy would be appropriate here. Thus the enforcement of a minimum proportion to be transported from a site by barge could be achieved through a legal agreement and this is commended to the mpa.

15. Secondly, minimising travel is a major consideration of national policy for sustainable transport (NPPF 2, para 103) . Therefore, it follows that in a local policy on sustainable transport similar considerations will apply. Not only does this relate to the use of alternative transport modes but also to that which reduces the levels of imports to an area, where local material can be used instead, which is a different point to sites being in close proximity to markets; this is about reducing the levels of material traded unnecessarily between areas. This is in accordance with the draft Plan which says that sand and gravel is a relatively low cost mineral and is not generally cost effective to transport over long dist ances . The plan should actively seek to provide minerals supplies indigenously in accordance with national policy and should repatriate material imported from other areas, if it can be supplied locally.

16. Accordingly,
11Po licy SPS - Sustainable Transport
1. All mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. At those sites where barge or rail is proposed, proposals will be expected to make provision for an appropriate reduction in road haulage to be secured through a legal agreement.
2. Where it can be demonstrated that there is no viable alternative to road transport, all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows:
a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets to minimise transport movement; and
b) within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes in order to avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation.
3. Proposals requiring the bulk transport of minerals, minerals waste/fill or materials/substances used for the extraction of minerals by road will be required to demonstrate that more sustainable forms of transport are not viable.
4. Proposals for mineral development will be supported where unnecessary imports are reduced or avoided."
Question 7 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?

17. . MGL considers that Policy SP6 does not deal with potential conflicts between different policy areas, nor provide advice on where the balance lies when considering such conflicts . Our major concern is the conflict between a biodiversity led restoration policy approach and the need to conserve best and most versatile soils. Apart from saying that the loss of agricultural land to wetland can be managed (paragraph 3.60) the plan is silent on how this can be achieved and what policy position would be taken when loss of agricultural land is unavoidable.

18. MGL believes what is needed is a statement about the level of acceptable losses of best and most versatile soils (say, limited to less than 20 ha) and an indication of how to minimise such losses even if this should be at the expense of less wetland habitat. The plan should also say that if restoration schemes can demonstrate that soil grade can be preserved so there is no permanent loss of agricultural land or its quality, then the NPPF policy of preference of development of poorer quality land over higher quality land does not apply (NPPF footnote 53).

19. Accordingly, MGL considers this could best be handled by additional explanatory text in paragraph 3.60;

"Agricultural land and Soil
3.60. Minerals development often involves large areas of land and is limited to areas where the mineral naturally occurs and agricultural land quality is often heavily influenced by the underlying geology. This means that a balance has to be made between the need for the mineral and the protection of the agricultural land. Land quality varies from place to place. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC} provides a method for assessing the quality of farmland to enable informecf choices to be made about its future use within the planning system. The ALC system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into Subgrades 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The majority of sand and gravel extraction in the Trent and Idle Valleys will result in the substantial permanent loss of agricultural land to wetland which along, with other development pre ssures, is causing a continuous erosion of the County's finite agricultural resources. However, appropriate management and restoration of mineral workings can secure the safeguarding of best and most versatile soils. For example, limited loss of such land (to less than 20ha} or only temporary disturbance to high quality soils where soil quality can be demonstrated to be preserved or enhanced, will not be considered to be contrary to national policy to prefer the development of poorer quality land over higher quality areas.11

20. Regarding infrastructure in paragraph 3.66 the Local Plan is in danger of mispresenting the legal situation. Not all infrastructure has rights of absolute protection. Utility companies install below ground infrastructure under explicit title provision that should the land and mineral owners wish to extract minerals then either the apparatus is removed or compensation is paid when the working face approaches the pipeline and a statutory notice is served. This is a commercial
matter and the planning system should not be used to subvert the legitimate rights of landowners under other codes. Accordingly, paragraph 3.66 should be modified as follows,

"Infrastructure
3.66. Nottinghamshire has an extensive physical network of transport, communications, water, energy, and waste infrastructure. Mineral working provides the raw materials to maintain much of this essential infrastructure but it is important that the process of mineral extraction does not compromise the operation of existing or planned future infrastructure. When considering development proposals, consultation will take place with the utility companies, rail operators and other network providers. will be re€{uired to identify potential risks and to ensure appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation measures. This is likely to include the need for appropriate stand offs from overhead or underground transmission cables, buried or surface pipelines and rail i frastructure. Appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation measures may be required in certain circumstances, or provision will be made to relocate the infrastructure to accommodate minerals working. 11

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

21. No Comment

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

22. No Comment

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

23. MGL considers that the Local Plan severely under-provides for sand and gravel. In particular, reliance on a bare 10 year average past sales as a forecast of future demand is clearly not appropriate on its own . Thus the Local Plan does not take into account planned development so that the LAA 'forecast' is based entirely on past sales trends contrary to national policy and guidance (NPPF paragraph 207 a) & PPG paragraph 27-064).

24. Since the averages of the last 10 years' production are heavily skewed towards recessionary conditions, by basing future provision on such a figure the Council risks building in a permanent loss of capacity at a time of increased market demand, and expectations by communities for new houses and more jobs. If Nottinghamshire underprovides for its own needs, it will put strain on other areas to make up the shortfall.

25. There are two possible approaches to a consideration of future demand. First, the statistical link between sand and gravel production and housing completions may be used, which can be derived from figures used in the LAA. Using sand and gravel and soft sand sales and housing completions between 2007 and 2016 gives a Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) of +0.700642 which is a statistically significant linear relationship, and which has an equally strong basis as a
causative effect. Applying the expected annual average planned housing completion rate for the county over the plan period of 4,574 dwellings to that PCC using the forecast function in Excel gives a return sand and gravel/soft sand forecast of 3.17 Mt pa. Deducting a figure of 0.37 Mtpa for soft sand leaves a sand and gravel provision figure of 2.8 Mtpa which MGL suggests is a robust alternative to the 10 year average .

26. There is a statement in the LAA that implies that one cannot use housing completions to forecast sand and gravel demand because it is only part of the overall demand and sand and gravel gets used for other construction projects. However, this is a red herring for two reasons. One, if there exists a statistically significant linear relationship between two variables which are causatively linked then knowing one variable leads to the prediction of the other variable. This is why statistically significant relationships are researched in all walks of life - to be able to make predictions. Therefore, it is irrelevant that sand and gravel is used for other things. The statistical relationship is all that is necessary to predict future sand and gravel demand knowing future housing completion rates. Two, construction of housing goes hand in hand with other types of development requiring sand and gravel such as commercial, retail, industrial and infrastructure, which are all related to population and economic growth. The driving force of sand and gravel demand is not housing per se but the underlying economic and population growth. Therefore, if it can be shown to be statistically significant then the relationship between sand and gravel and housing completions can be used as a proxy for all types of develo pment .

27. Second, the situation in Nottinghamshire is similar to that pertaining in Oxfordshire. Here, the onset of the recession led to the major operators mothballing sites and delaying implementation of planning permissions, just as in Nottinghamshire and transferring production to other sites outside of the county. These commercial decisions in Oxfordshire reduced the 10 year rolling average below what it would have been had these commercial decisions not been taken. Oxfordshire took the view that it would be prudent to assume that this would only be a temporary market distortion and that as growth returned production would recommence at the affected sites. As such, the 10 year average would underestimate the true level of future demand.

28. Quantification of the effect was approached by considering how the county's sales had reduced compared to the whole of England during the baseline period . Given that the county and the country were subject to the same recession, it was reasonable to conclude that any differences between the percentages during the period reflected specific local factors.

29. If this approach is applied to Nottinghamshire then in the five year period prior to the recession (2004-2008} Nottinghamshire's sand and gravel sales (including soft sand} as a proportion of all England averaged 6.53%. In the last year (2016} the proportion was 3.85%. If this is converted into a figure for the county linked to the current level of sales in England which in 2016 was
41.26 Million tonnes, then applying a pre-recession proportion of 6.53% gives us a demand for Nottinghamshire of 2.694 Million tonnes. Once an allowance for soft sand has been deducted, the like-for-like sand and gravel demand figure is about 2.4 Million tonnes pa. Although this is
lower than the first method, this is because all the Oxfordshire method does is restore the county to conditions as they were before the distorting effects of the recession; it does not explicitly take account of future growth, which is why the statistical method is to be preferred.

30. Both these alternative methods demonstrate that the 10 year average should not be pursued by the County Council if it wants to provide for future growth and truly take into account other relevant local information in accordance with national policy. MGL strongly urges the County Council to abandon its current methodology and to adopt a more realistic alternative as outlined here.

31. Accordingly,
uPolicy MP1: Aggregate Provision
1. To meet identified levels of demand for aggregate mineral over the plan period {2017- 2036) the following provision will be made:
- J-2-.Jf} 53.20 million tonnes of Sand and Gravel
- 7.03 million tonnes of Sherwood Sandstone
- 0.09 million tonnes of crushed rock
2. The County Council will make provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel, 7 years for Sherwood Sandstone and 10 years for crushed rock, whilst maintaining a steady and adequate supply over the plan period.
3. Proposals for aggregate extraction outside those areas identified in policies MP2, MP3 and MP4 will be supported where a need can be demonstrated ."
Moreover, the County Council's policy of preferring extensions over new sites and underproviding for the total quantity of sand and gravel and favours incumbent companies over new entrants, which is anti -co mpet it ive. An analysis of the allocations compared to Appendix 2: Delivery Schedule shows two major outcomes 33. The first outcome is that one company has been granted 60% of the allocations (Chart 1) and the next largest allocation is one new ent rant. This means that some companies have been left out completely and have no new reserves to replace exhausted operations further reducing the spread of competition in the county. This is fundamentally anticompetitive. Moreover, the second major outcome is shown in Chart 2.
34. Chart 2 shows the allocations split between the three production/market areas of the Plan. The light blue line shows the total allocated and this does not reach the policy level proposed to be adopted at any point in the Plan period. Moreover, capacity falls off rapidly after 2030 to nominal levels as existing pits close through exhaust ion. There fore, the plan does not make full provision for productive capacity through any part of its plan period.

35. It is clear that if a non-doctrinaire approach to provision is taken, which includes provision for planned growth and for maintaining productive capacity, and is more equal in the allocation of reserves across a number of companies, t hen much more provision is needed.

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

36. MGL has no comment about the specifics of the allocations except to reiterate the need for more provision in the form of new quarries and a more equitable spread of sites among the industry. Thus MGL wishes to promote is own site at Flash Farm, Averham. This site was allocated in the former abandoned Plan in 2016, and clearly retains a number of advantages which make its suitable for working. This means that it has no overriding adverse environmental impacts and the only reason it appears not to have been included in this plan is the change of approach to local plan provision following the County Council elections of 2017.

37. This site located on the A617 at Averham west of Newark and would produce about 200,000 tonnes of high quality aggregate a year for markets to the north of Nottingham, Ashfield, Mansfield and possibly Derbyshire beyond. Some material is also likely to be sold in the Newark area.

38. A planning application including a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared for the Flash Farm quarry (see Drg N° F18/15/01). The application is in an advanced state to formally submit to the County Council. However, that submission is currently being held in abeyance awaiting the progression of the consultation process but demonstrates a clear commitment to "deliver" the site.

39. The environmental appraisals undertaken have raised no issues that would warrant refusal of the development proposals and confirm that the site is eminently suitable as a Local Plan all ocat ion.

40. The site is located partially within the western floodplain of the north-eastward flowing River Trent and consists of gravels and sandy gravels concealed in part by shallow deposits of alluvium. The mineral deposit is characterised by low fines content and high percentage of gravel. The gravel fraction is predominantly fine with occasional cobbles whilst the sand is medium grained and these consist primarily of quartz and quartzite with subordinate amounts of flint, chert and sandstone.

41. The site lies in the Trent Valley in the Trent Washlands Landscape Character Area and the proposed extraction area is largely flat lying at about 14m AOD and located in open countryside characterised by large fields, low hedges with sporadic hedgerow trees, and occasional blocks of woodland on higher ground to the north. It is also fairly isolated with the property of Flash Farm itself located 160 metres to the north. All other properties are at the villages of Averham and Kelham which are 540m and 660m to the south east and north east respectively.

42. The Flash Farm site comprises a number of agricultural fields, sub-divided primarily by fencing, under arable and pasture use. The site is crossed by a 400 Kva overhead power line with three substantial stanchions within the land in question. The wider landscape is dominated by adverse detractors consisting of the Staythorpe Power Station (to the south) and power lines leading from it as well as the dominant flue stack from the sugar beet factory to the north-east.

43. As the mineral extraction area is not sub-divided by any hedgerows, the scheme of working therefore importantly does not require the removal of any sections of vegetation (i.e . hedgerow or trees) whatsoe ver.
44. The quarry has been designed to reinstate the land in a sensitive fashion seeking to apply best environmental practice and give practical effect to strategic government initiatives on protection of soil resources and habitat creation using importation of suitable inert material as a catalyst for the beneficial restoration of the land to be reinstated to its existing "best and most versatile" agricultural land status.

45. Moreover, the opportunity has afforded conditions to create bio-diversity action plan priority habitats such as species rich grassland and lowland wet grassland as well as some 2.3km of new hedgerows (which currently do not exist).

46. The proposed scheme of working has been devised to reflect current landscape improvement and nature conservation policies. Net biodiversity gain would be achieved through the creation of a cohesive network of new habitats, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity. The application site itself is currently of limited ecological value with a majority of the site consisting of intensively managed fields with very limited hedgerows of variable quality within the site itself.

47. Accordingly, the scheme provides a high standard of mitigation by delivering net gain in environmental capital and strategic bio-diversity networks. Such benefits to bio-diversity are envisaged within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance as well as emerging plan policies within the draft Minerals Local Plan which contains a "bio diversity led" philosophy for the restoration of quarry workings.

48. Given the site's location the proposed scheme of working can readily provide effective protection against unreasonable noise and dust emissions with the site design carefully aimed to balance protection of the local environment with the requirement to extract and process mineral.

49. The site access will be directly onto the A617 upgrading an existing gated access . The A617 is part of the Strategic Highway Network and policy objectives (locally and nationally) support the use of such roads to transport goods and materials (including miner als) .

50. The Flash Farm site is the only sand and gravel allocation identified within the Consultation Plan in the Newark area lying to the west of Kelham Bridge which is ideally located to serve markets to the north and west of the bridge. Without Flash Farm being present other quarries would have to transport material across Kelham Bridge to serve those same markets. Congestion around Kelham Bridge has been highlighted by the County Council and residents as being of concern although the A 617 is identified as part of the County's Core Road Network. Accordingly, Flash Farm would have a neutral effect as movements west over the bridge would be balanced by movements in the other direction.

51. As such, MGL commends the Flash Farm site to the County Council as a prospective site specific allocation.

52. MGL would like to remind the County Council that this site was allocated in the previous Plan and it consequently was considered suitable for inclusion as a working site. Environmentally, it passed the test of sustainability and therefore should be included in the Plan given the shortfall of provision MGL has identified. An extract of the 'Minerals Local Plan Consultation Submission Draft February 2016, Appendix 3: Site Allocation Development Briefs' is enclosed which contains a description of the sit e.

Questions 12-38
No comment

Attachments:

Mick George Limited Rep

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32410

Received: 26/09/2018

Respondent: Brett Aggregates Limited

Representation Summary:

A geographical spread of sites across the county is supported. Based on the evidence provided it is argued that the shelford proposal if allocated would maintain the geographical spread of permitted reserves across the county.
See full representation for full details.

Full text:

Brett Aggregates Ltd (BAL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert and Sons Limited (Brett), the aggregates, building materials and civil engineering business, which was established over a century ago. It is the largest independent producer of sand and gravel in the UK. BAL manages all Brett's quarry, marine dredged and recycled aggregates together with coated roadstone operations.
1.2 Following withdrawal of the Submission Draft of the Minerals Local Plan (MLP) in 2017 Nottinghamshire County Council (the County) published an Issues an Options document in respect of a revised MLP together with a Call for Sites. The County is now consulting on a Draft MLP and seeking responses by the 28th September 2018.
1.3 BAL's interest in Nottinghamshire is in respect of aggregate bearing land adjacent to the River Trent at Shelford. This land represents a significant sand and gravel resource, the future development of which will ensure that Nottinghamshire, in particular the south of the County including the City of Nottingham, will be able to meet a steady and adequate supply of aggregates throughout the plan period whilst minimizing the amount of mineral miles travelled on the County's road network by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) delivering aggregate. It will also provide for the delivery of material using the River Trent and the existing wharf at Colwick to bring aggregate into the established industrial area of the City for use in the production of concrete. This approach accords with National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF) in respect of providing a steady and adequate supply of mineral and sustainable development objectives.
The comments made in this submission relate only to the questions raised by the County in the Draft MLP document and do not alter BAL's submissions in respect of the withdrawn MLP. The format of this response is to address those questions which relate to BAL's area of interest. As the MLP preparation proceeds and further information becomes available other matters may arise on which BAL may wish to comment.
Question 1. What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the plan?
2.1 Nottinghamshire has a varied population distribution and it would be helpful to show on Plan 1 the relative sizes of the principal towns and Nottingham City in terms of population size. This would be helpful in understanding where demand for aggregate is likely to arise.
2.2 It would also be useful to show where the boundaries of adjoining Mineral Planning Authorities intersect with the boundary for Nottinghamshire. This information would be helpful in understanding the spatial inter relationship with the neighbouring counties as there is significant interaction between them in respect of mineral production and demand, see later comments.
2.3 Generally BAL agrees that the draft vision is appropriate. In particular the need to ensure that mineral development is concentrated in locations that offer the greatest level of accessibility to major markets and growth areas.
QUESTION 2. What do you think of the draft strategic policy?
3.1 Generally BAL agrees with the strategic issues, in particular securing a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire.
QUESTION 3. What do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
4.1 BAL object to this policy firstly on the basis that priority should not be given to the extension of existing sites where this would lead to a skewed geographical distribution of mineral production resulting in aggregate having to be transported longer distances and/or imported from surrounding counties. This is particularly the case in Nottinghamshire where there is strong demand in the south of the County and where the main sites of the previous MLP are worked out thus limiting the opportunity for extensions to just one small quarry (see below for further justification in respect of this issue).
4.2 BAL also object to the policy not including reference to giving priority to sites where non road transport, particularly the use of the River Trent, is proposed. This is particularly important as the ability to barge material is given priority in other policies and site selection.
Question 4. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led restoration?
5.1 BAL supports this policy.
Question 5. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
6.1 BAL supports this policy but would wish to see the inclusion of non road transport methods in the criteria which will assist in delivering the policy.
Question 6. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable development?
7.1 BAL supports this policy.
Question 7. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and natural environment?
8.1 There is a tension between the policy in respect of the effect on Best and Most Versatile Land (BMVL) and the biodiversity led restoration proposals which underpin the Plan. This is highlighted at para. 3.60 where reference is made to the ability to safeguard best and most versatile "soils" rather than land. It would be appropriate if this distinction were also to be made in the policy wording in order to avoid the conflict between the wetland restoration proposals and the preservation of BMVL.
Question 9. What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
9.1 BAL supports the policy, in particular the safeguarding of Colwick Wharf although its location and designation could be made clearer on Plan 4.
Question 10. What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate provision?
10.1 We object to the draft approach being taken .National Policy in relation to planning for future aggregate demand is to be found in NPPF. For an MLP to be found sound1 it is necessary for it to be
* Positively prepared
* Justified
* Effective
* Consistent with national policy
10.2 The assessment of need on which the County bases its MLP is an essential component of this process as follows. For the plan to be positively prepared it must look forward on the basis that proposed development as set out in other plans and proposals will come forward and that need must be met through adequate allocation of resources in the MLP. This requirement must also be met for the MLP to be justified and effective.
10.3 The requirement for the MLP to be consistent with national policy in relation to assessing need and in particular the calculation of an adequate landbank requirement for an MLP can be found in the NPPF as follows2
* Preparing an annual Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA) based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information.
Ensuring that large landbanks bound up in a very few sites do not stifle competition.
10.4 It is clear from the NPPF that the 10 year rolling average should be a starting point and that other local factors should be taken into account. National Planning Practice Guidance gives advice as to what local factors should be taken into account. The guidance is that relevant local information used should be that which seeks to look ahead rather than just relying on past sales. The guidance goes onto advise that such information may include levels of planned construction and house building in the local area but also " throughout the country" 3
10.5 The Planning Officers Society in conjunction with the Mineral Products Association have also produced useful practical guidance in assessing need and in particular what sort of local information should be used in considering the adequacy of the 10 year rolling average. These include4:-
* Geological resources being exhausted
* Trends and forecasts of population change including information in Local Plans on house building.
* Validated data on aggregate use in construction provided by the MPA.
* Planned major infrastructure projects including those within the County and 30 miles beyond as detailed in the National Infrastructure Plan 2016-2020. Also those projects included in Local Economic Partnerships Growth Deals and Strategic Economic Plans together with construction projects identified in District and Unitary Authority's infrastructure Development Plans. Planned highway improvement and maintenance works should also be considered.
* Local Regional and national economic forecasts from various sources.
* Information from the minerals industry on the availability of marine materials.
* Major new sources of recycled or secondary material becoming available.
* New environmental constraints being identified in aggregate producing areas or in proximity to them.
10.6 In looking at the appropriateness of the rolling 10 year average as the basis for calculating future demand it is essential that the veracity of the information is examined forensically. In particular are there any factors which have influenced the data such that it does not truly reflect the production of aggregate in the County to the extent that it cannot be relied upon to predict future need. In terms of the basis of a future MLP will it result in a plan which is not justified or effective in terms of whether the plan is sound.
10.7 Geological resources being exhausted and the issue of Finningly Quarry. Finningley Quarry is situated on the northern border of Nottinghamshire where is abuts Doncaster. It should be noted that the latest Nottinghamshire LAA (Oct 2017) advises that the annual production figures for the County have been affected by production at Finningley moving across the border into some of the years covered by the latest 10 years of production5. If this situation were to continue to operate in the future, that is production moving in and out of the County then its inclusion in the 10 year rolling average would be a sound basis for predicting future need. However, the Notts LAA advises6 that the reserves in both Doncaster and Rotherham (also referred to as South Yorkshire) are extremely limited and future supplies will be coming from Nottinghamshire, in particular the quarry at Sturton le Steeple which has permitted reserves.
10.8 This being the case it is necessary to look at the impact Finningley Quarry moving across the border has had on the last 10 years production in Nottinghamshire. This can be done by looking at the Doncaster and Rotherham LAA. Whilst individual quarry production is confidential the explanation below Table 1 makes it clear that production decreased in 2010 from 0.5MT to 0.16MT probably due to production at Finningley moving across the border into Nottinghamshire. Looking at Table 1 production from 2006 to 2015 was either 0.4/5MT or 0.14/5/6MT which indicates that at the higher levels production at Finningley was in Doncaster and at the lower levels it was in Nottinghamshire. Consequently from Table 1 we can deduce which years there would have been a shortfall in the Finningley contribution to the Nottinghamshire landbank and we can calculate the annual difference this will make by averaging the higher and lower figures and subtracting the lower from the higher. The difference is calculated as 0.3MT (0.45MT less 0.15MT).
10.9 The Nottinghamshire 10 year rolling average for sand and gravel is based on the years 2007 to 2016 whilst the Rotherham and Doncaster LAA is based on 2006 to 2015. However the Notts LAA does advise that in 2016 production in Finningley was across the border in Doncaster. This means it is possible to estimate the amount of the shortfall in the Nottinghamshire 2007 to 2016 production figures attributable to production at Finningley being in Doncaster. The calculation is based on the table below.
10.10 The 10 year rolling average if being used to predict future requirement in Nottinghamshire should now be calculated using 10 years annual production which includes the Finningley missing years as detailed above. That requires an addition 1.5MT to be added to the 17.04MT to give 18.54MT and results in a 10 year average annual sales of 1.85MT compared with the County's calculation of 1.70MT. The contribution of Finningley Quarry to the landbank is clearly a significant local factor which should be taken into account in using the 10 year rolling average as the basis for predicting future need.
10.11 Population Change and house building. The second local factor which needs to be taken into account in reviewing the 10 year rolling average is house building rates in the County and what is now planned. The County's latest LAA (October 2017, December 2016 data) sets out the planned house building rates for the individual planning authorities in the County. It is important to note that these are not maximum rates but are those which have been rigorously tested through the Local Plan processes including Strategic Housing Market Assessments and in some cases full Independent Examination procedures. It is also important to note that the Local Plans on which these house building rates are based were using pre 2014 Office of National Statistic (ONS) data. The 2014 when applied to the districts in Nottinghamshire will invariably lead to an increase in requirement. Consequently the impact of the planned house building rates should be considered as a minimum on which aggregate requirement should be based.
10.12 At Appendix 1 is a Table 2 which shows the house building rates for the local planning authority areas in Nottinghamshire over the 10 year period covering that being used by the County for the 10 year rolling average. The information contained within Table 2 has been taken from the Annual Monitoring Reports and other documents produced by the LPAs. The extracts from these documents can also be found at Appendix 1.
10.13 From Table 2 it can be seen that the average annual house building rate per LPA area over the past 10 years has been 351 units per annum. This figure is directly comparable with the average annual sand and gravel production rates calculated from the past 10 year's production. Table 2 uses the future house building rates deduced by the County in the October 2017 LAA7 to show that the average future rate will be 571 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 220 dwellings per annum and represents a 63% increase. It is essential that this increase is taken as the minimum as it is based on solid evidence, it is not stated as a maximum so may be exceeded and is likely to be an underestimate based on the 2014 ONS data and the latest government advice that house building must increase. The population of Nottinghamshire including the County is expected to grow from 1.13 million in 2016 to 1.25 million in 2036. This growth will require at least the planned house building detailed on Table 2 which is based on the lower pre ONS 2014 estimates and it should be noted that as house building picks up following the recession the annual average rate per authority has already reached 468 dwellings per annum (2015/6) which is 81% of the planned annual requirement.
10.14 Validated data on aggregate use in construction is provided by the MPA. The October 2017 LAA references the use of aggregates in house building as being 20% of total production. Although it should be noted that at the recent examination into the Oxfordshire MLP 35% was used. It should be noted that house building requires significant support construction such as local roads, schools, village halls etc.
10.15 Planned major infrastructure projects. The October 2017 LAA notes that no further major infrastructure projects have been identified since the production of the previous LAA (January 2017). However, the January 2017 LAA was based on significantly higher rolling 10 year average taking into account partly pre recession construction levels and, therefore, capturing higher level of construction. With the move to the most recent 10 year rolling average this is no longer the case and the LAA needs to recognize that planned infrastructure for the future is significantly higher than accounted for by the 10 year rolling average which now almost solely covering a recession period when infrastructure projects were virtually non-existent. An adjustment to the 10 year average which determines the future landbank needs to be made in order for the MLP to be based on realistic future aggregate need.
10.16 Infrastructure identified in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016 to 2021 for the Nottinghamshire area is:-
* Midland Main Line. Further electrification to Nottingham.
* East Coast Mainline. Station, signaling and track works to facilitate longer new Super Express Trains.
* HS2.
It should be noted that the time period for this infrastructure plan is just 5 years and represents only 16% of the MLP plan period. Also included in the plan is reference to the Midlands Engine and the proposal for carrying out feasibility studies in respect of upgrades to the M1 and Smart motorway improvements together with improvements to the A46 Newark bypass and its intersection with the A1.
10.17 The Local Enterprise Partnership D2N2 (covering Nottingham and Derby and parts of both counties) has produced a programme which includes a target to create 50,000 jobs and to build 77,000 dwellings. The dwellings are included in Local Plans but D2N2 are intending to ensure that infrastructure delivery does not frustrate the building of the dwellings.
10.18 East Midlands airport which lies alongside the HS2 route is planning to increase from 4.3 to 10 million passengers and 300,000 to 700,000t of freight by 2040. The majority of this development will occur in the MLP plan period. A major freight terminal is also planned for the M1 j23a/24. Whilst this is in Leicestershire it lies within the 30 mile zone beyond the County boundary which the POS/MPA advice considers should be included in any future assessment for aggregate provision within a County.
10.19 Local regional and national economic forecast. The latest MPA forecasts (February 2019) suggest that aggregate demand will have increased by 19% by 2019 compared to 2015. Infrastructure growth is expected to be 56% from 2015 to 2019. In the longer term replenishment rates for sand and gravel show that for every 100 tonnes of material used planning permissions for replacement accounts for only 56 tonnes indicating that in the future shortages of supply will be apparent.
10.20 Availability of marine materials. Nottinghamshire is a landlocked county and some distance from any marine sourced aggregate landing facility. Consequently the material is not used in the County.
10.21 Major new sources of recycled or secondary material. For Nottinghamshire inert waste processing (considered suitable for recycled aggregate production) has now recovered to pre recession rates. However, whilst power station ash is capable of being substituted for primary aggregates the 3 coal fired power stations within the County are all planned to be closed by 2025. It would, therefore, be unwise to rely on any further increase in recycled output and in fact a reduction in availability of this material should be planned.
10.22 New environmental constraints. No new environmental constraints which could restrict aggregate extraction in the County have been identified. Locally the ban on extraction in the Peak District National Park has been accounted for by Derbyshire planning to increase production in the rest of the County by an amount equivalent to that to be lost through lack of production in the National Park.
10.23 It is apparent from the above information that there are a number of factors pointing to the need to modify the rolling 10 year average if a robust prediction of future need is to be made. The evidence is that the figure will need to be increased on the basis that during the MLP period more aggregate will have to be exported to South Yorkshire, a greater number of dwellings will be built, more jobs created and more infrastructure built. Of these elements it has been possible to quantify numerically only the impact of the increase in future exports to South Yorkshire and house building rates. House building is considered to represent the use of only 20 to 35% of the total supply of aggregate. However, house building is a key component in providing dwellings for new employees who will occupy newly constructed factories and commercial premises. House building also drives infrastructure provision including roads, such as those around Newark, schools, hospitals etc. lt is, therefore, proposed that the house building rates of the past 10 years be compared with aggregate use of the same period and then used to predict future aggregate requirement.
10.24 Taking the 1.85MTPA (10 year rolling average modified to take account of the Finningley Quarry production changes within the County) is comparable with an 10 year rolling average house building rate of per local authority (including Nottingham City) of 351 dwellings per annum. The future house building rate is 572 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 63% and will require a similar increase in aggregate production going forward. This requires that the 10 year rolling average be increased by 63% (1.63 x 1.85) to 3.02MT.
10.25 In order to fully understand why Nottinghamshire has failed to increase its annual production of aggregate to that approaching its pre recession rates it is useful to look at the 10 year production rates for the counties making up the East Midlands AWP area. Table 3 shows figures taken from the LAAs for these counties. The East Midlands in 2016 had reached 70% of its pre recession production rate. Three counties were at around pre recession levels with two counties actually producing more. Lincolnshire is now producing 64 % of its pre recession level but Nottinghamshire is only at 40%. It is clear that lack of production in Nottinghamshire is holding back the East Midlands in reaching pre recession production levels. This assessment supports the need to increase the proposed landbank above that which would result from using the rolling 10 year landbank as the basis for future need prediction and this should be 3.02MTPA to give a required landbank for the plan period ( 2017 to 2036) of 57.38MT.
Question 11. What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel allocations?
11.1 The Draft MLP states that the site specific allocations are based on a consideration of five options which were narrowed down to two criteria on which the decision to allocate was based. Firstly, the need to have a geographical spread of sites across the County and secondly to prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge. BAL considers that this approach is appropriate.
11.2 The draft MLP is supported by A Draft site selection methodology and assessment document, July 2018, (Draft Site Selection Document)) and Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report, July 2018 (Draft SA). The Draft SA contains a detailed numerically based site assessment methodology and a numerical assessment of all the sites put forward. This is surprising because the draft MLP specifically excludes as one of the five options considered allocating sites based on their particular merits. The SA numerical assessment is then taken forward in the Draft Site Selection Document (Section 6) where the geographical spread of sites is stated as the main basis in determining which sites to allocate although this is not based on an objectively assessed need for each area. The ability of material to be transported by river barge is not given priority in the final site selection process.
11.3 BAL consider that it is necessary to maintain a geographical spread of quarries and permitted reserves across the County for two reasons. Firstly is the cost of transporting bulky materials relative to value that in respect of aggregates is low. This means that an appropriate geographic spread is important to ensure that the economy works effectively and additional costs are not unnecessarily incurred. It is also the case that for this reason proposed aggregate reserves should be matched geographically to where those reserves will be used. Secondly is the issue of environmental impact caused by HGV movements associated with aggregate transport.
11.4 Below Table 5 shows the current distribution of permitted reserves compared with spatial requirement for future house building. This is based on the information contained within the October 2017 LAA in respect of permitted reserves and Table 4 at Appendix 3 of this document.
The current distribution is not sustainable in terms of transportation of aggregate and the consequences for air quality and climate change. If extensions to quarries were to be preferred compared to opening up new sites this unsustainable distribution will continue. This is not in accordance with the NPPF guidance in respect of sustainable development.
11.5 In respect of the geographical distribution of aggregate production in the County Table 6 below shows the comparison between future house building in the three aggregate production areas identified by the County and the proposed geographical spread of aggregate production (permitted and proposed) in the draft MLP. There is a significant discrepancy between the two factors with 16% of the house building taking place in the Newark area whilst 46% of the aggregate reserves are planned to be here. In respect of Idle Valley (north Nottinghamshire) 18% of the house building for the County is planned to be here but 36% of the aggregate reserves are proposed in the draft MLP. Meanwhile in the south of the County where 56% of the house building is planned only 18% of the aggregate reserves are proposed in the MLP.
11.6 Taking into account the information in Table 6 it is surprising that the Shelford site (located in the South) was dismissed as a proposed allocation in the draft MLP solely on the basis that to allocate such a large site (6.5MT) in the south would skew the geographical distribution whilst factually Shelford should be allocated to maintain the correct geographical spread of allocated and permitted reserves in the County.
11.7 Even if the limited landbank proposed by the County is accepted (BAL object to the limited landbank, see above) in order to meet the objective set out under policy MP2 of having a geographical spread and meeting the requirement for the plan to be "justified" more aggregate should be allocated in the south and less in the north. This can be achieved within the limited landbank put forward by deleting Botany Bay and Mill Hill (or alternatively one of the proposed Newark sites) as new allocations and substituting Shelford. This has the added benefit of meeting the second MP2 site selection criteria which is "potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge" and with which Shelford is the only site complying. Furthermore, the allocation of Shelford would lead to a better commercial balance of supply than is currently, and proposed to be, the case by introducing a new operator into the County. This will ensure that the plan is sound with respect to NPPF para 207 (g).
11.8 The correct geographical distribution of aggregate resources proposed in the draft MLP is important because of the impact of moving mineral within the County and bringing mineral in from surrounding counties if the distribution does not match planned development. The above analysis has used house building as a marker because the level of house building reflects where jobs are to be created and consequently commercial development, local infrastructure and major infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure identified above in relation to the landbank assessment will take place in the south of the County and includes East-Midlands airport expansion, HS2, works to the Nottingham railway line etc. The consequences of not sourcing mineral close to where it is needed are that more miles are travelled by HGVs transporting the mineral. This has a negative impact on air quality and in the long run climate change.
11.9 The air quality and climate consequences have been assessed with respect to HGV movements associated with the proposed Shelford Quarry and those at Newark in the attached (Appendix 4) RPS document. This gives an indication of the problems associated with having a poor geographical distribution of mineral resources in the County.
11.10 In respect of Shelford and the site assessment which has been undertaken BAL have been surprised that a site which was assessed as scoring well under the previous, now withdrawn MLP, has now scored somewhat poorly. Whilst this has not led to officers proposing not to allocate the site which as set out above was solely on the basis of geographical spread of sites the documents underpinning the scoring have been analyzed and series of reports prepared.
Previously the County scored the Shelford site as -6 during the operational phase and 0 in the post operational phase. In the current SA the site is scored -10 in the operational phase and -1 in the post operational phase. Although it should be noted that the summation of the actual SA scores results in a total +2 for the long term.
11.11 BAL has commissioned reports on the various areas of the assessment where it is considered that discrepancies have arisen. It should be noted that since the previous site assessment BAL have undertaken significant work with respect to the site with a view to submitting a planning application. This work was halted when the previous MLP in which Shelford was allocated was withdrawn. However, that work is recent and remains relevant. Some of it has been taken into account in the assessment, in particular that in respect of the historic environment. However, other work, in particular with regard to ecology and hydrology has not been taken into account. Reports in respect of Landscape, hydrology, ecology and transport are attached as appendices.
11.12 The completion of the surveys and other work at Shelford mean that the deliverability of the site can be assured. In the site assessment process the County have determined that Shelford is deliverable. This is an important factor in determining the soundness of the plan.
11.13 Below is a table showing a comparison of the scoring for the Shelford site in the current SA and that as assessed by BAL. Below the table is an explanation in respect of each topic.
Biodiversity. The operational phase score has been downgraded to reflect that the site will be worked wet so there will be no disturbance to the hydrology of the nearby locally designated wildlife sites.
Landscape. This aspect of the assessment has shown the most significant change in scoring for the site changing from -2 to -3 during the operational phase but most surprising changing from -1 to -3 in the long term. The BAL landscape assessment analysis has found that the approach adopted by the County does not allow for an area to be not typical of its character area nor the possibility that positive impacts are possible where a landscape is sensitive to change. In particular the County's landscape analysis fails to understand that the course of the Trent has changed at Shelford, the river now runs through a highly engineered channel and the flood defences along the river have allowed intensive agriculture with large scale arable fields predominating. The mineral extraction provides a significant opportunity to reintroduce the water meadows adjacent to the village and overall a water environment which reflects the historic landscape context. This is a positive aspect of the restoration which is not reflected in the -3 for the long term score.
Flooding. Whilst designing the final restoration scheme for the site initial flood modeling was carried out to see whether flood defences adjacent to the river (these are secondary to those adjacent to Shelford village) could be removed to allow the reconnection of the floodplain. Unfortunately only partial realignment of the flood defence is possible because the flood modeling has shown that under various scenarios the Shelford land and its defences acts to reduce the impact of flooding further downstream. This work has shown that the site can be worked without increasing risk of flooding and in fact during the operational stage there will be an opportunity to improve the defences adjacent to the village. The operational score has been increased to reflect the work carried out and the potential to reduce the risk of flooding during the operations phase.
Climate change. Shelford is the only site where river barging is proposed. This will produce a positive impact from one third of the material being transported in a way that has less impact on climate. The operational score has been amended accordingly.
Efficient use of land. Previously the site assessment viewed larger sites as being more efficient as lots of smaller sites require numerous processing and other plant. This is still the case and the score has been amended accordingly.
Energy efficiency. One third of the material at Shelford will be transported by barge which is a significantly more energy efficient than road transport. The score has been amended accordingly.
Air quality. One third of the material at Shelford will be transported by barge which will result in less pollution than if that volume of material came from a site where only road transport were to be able. The score has been amended accordingly.
Water Quality. It is proposed that there will be no dewatering when the site is worked and there will be no imported material brought into the site consequently the risk to water quality is low and the score has been amended to reflect this.
Human health and quality of life. During the operational phase of the site it will be possible to open up permissive paths and the potential to improve the Shelford village flood defences together with the creation of the water meadows. The operational score has, therefore, been amended.
12 Question 24. What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality?
12.1 As stated above there is a tension between the policy in respect of the effect on Best and Most Versatile Land (BMVL) and the biodiversity led restoration proposals which underpin the Plan. This is highlighted at para. 3.60 where reference is made to the ability to safeguard best and most versatile "soils" rather than land. It would be appropriate if this distinction were also to be made in the policy wording in order to avoid the conflict between the wetland restoration proposals and the preservation of BMVL.
13.What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: Landscape character?
12.1 BAL objects to the wording of this policy the first part of which would prevent any mineral development coming forward. It need to include the words "....will not cause unacceptable harm to the character...." Rather than " ...........will not adversely impact on the character .........."

Attachments:

Brett Aggregates Rep

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32420

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Representation Summary:

Issues and Options SA evaluated five options.
Concluded that "Options A and C scored equally favorably and were more sustainable than the other options". We object to this conclusion as the analysis is flawed. Reasons include:
Summary on Page 50 there is " considerable uncertainty" as to the possible impacts of the options on the sustainability objectives; half of them were not included in the scoring due to lack of detail. As a result of such uncertainty, a precautionary approach would suggest sustainable outcomes are more likely to be achieved if sites are considered on their individual merits than by the application of general criteria such as geographical spread.

Full text:

We are writing to confirm that we wish to OBJECT to the above site and key aspects on the Draft MLP as outlined below
We are fully supportive of the fuller submission made by Barton in Fabis Parish Council.

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?

1.1. A sustainable spatial distribution of sites is not one which is simply determined by proximity to market and transport costs. Indeed it can be argued that given that potential developers are probably better informed about the geography of the market and the economics of working a site than NCC, then it can be assumed that all the sites put forward by extraction companies are equally economically viable. In developing a minerals plan the goal of developing a sustainable spatial distribution is therefore dependent upon ensuring that of the sites allocated those selected have the least impact on wider sustainability goals because these cannot be properly evaluated when making decisions at the site level.
1.2. It is also important to note that if sites are allocated simply on the basis of location and the minimisation of transport costs to the detriment of the wider social and environmental values of the site, then this undermines other stated objectives in the Vision, e.g. 'market the efficient use of resources' (S01). Extraction and transport expenditures by the developer should take account of the total cost to the community, including the harm to wider social and environmental assets, of exploiting the resource in specific locations. Unless they do then the goal of increasing levels of aggregate recycling and the use of alternatives from secondary and recycled sources (S01) will not be achieved.
1.3. The interpretation of the concept of sustainable spatial distribution simply in terms of the geography of the market is therefore contrary to the overall sustainability goals that frame the minerals plan, and indeed undermines them. The Draft Mineral Plan is flawed in that it fails to demonstrate what constitutes a sustainable spatial distribution of sites in a meaningful and balanced way. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that it is inconsistent with its strategic objectives for sustainability.
1.4. The lack of consistency between the strategic objectives and their application in developing the plan is especially disappointing given the feedback that NCC received at the Issues and Options stage in which respondents felt that "strategic issues should be broadened to minimise all adverse impacts of development, including on environmental and heritage features such as biodiversity, landscape, archaeology and communities". We therefore object to the plan and require a better alignment between strategic objectives and their application.
1.5. Finally, in relation to the strategic framing of the Draft Plan, we broadly support the strategic policy on minerals provision (Q3), and in particular the emphasis given to the need for "all new proposals, whether allocated or otherwise, will need to be assessed in terms of their impact on local communities and the environment including matters such as landscape, heritage, biodiversity and climate, and what contribution they would make to achieving local and national biodiversity targets." This is clearly consistent with the strategic vision and sustainability objectives that underpin the plan. We are, however, disappointed that the site allocation methodology used in drawing up the plan fails to avoid the allocation of sites with significant negative impact on landscape, heritage, biodiversity and climate, and therefore encourages inappropriate proposals over others that would be more beneficial.
1.6. 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 biodive rsity led restoration?

The concept of biodiversity-led restoration is a sound one, and we are broadly supportive of its inclusion in the Draft Plan as a principle for decision making. However, we are disappointed by the simplistic way in which it is presented in the document, and consider the weakness in the way it is framed as a decision making criterion is inadequate.
1.8. In their review of the NPPF, the British Ecological Society1 state in relation to planning for no net loss to biodiversity that:
Anticipated impacts on biodiversity must be avoided or reduced through the use of alternative development sites or designs; unavoidable impacts must be mitigated and any residual damage must be com pensated for (for example by creating t he same habitat off site ). It is desirable for developments to aim for a 'net gain' in biodiversity overall, for example by providing more habitat than needed for mitigation and compensation.
1.9. The policy of ensuring that there is 'no net loss' of biodiversity as a result of development is now well established in the UK, and it is therefore disappointing that there is no reference to it in Section SP3 that relates to Question 4; this is surprising given that it is part of the wording
in DM4, Question 25. Instead the text relating to SP3 merely describes in simple term s what biodiversity-led rest oration entails and the kinds of habitat that might be restored in the context of mineral development. There is no explanation of the constraints associated with biodiversity-led restoration or the issues that need to be considered if proposals for such restoration are to be considered adequate. As a result the application of the principle of biodiversity-led rest oration in the plan is grossly inadequate.
1.10. The views of the British Ecological Society noted above reflect current scientific consensus on restoration - that while it can be successful this is by no means guaranteed. For example, Curran et al. show2 that while active restoration measures can significantly accelerate the increases in species diversity, the inherently large time lags, uncertainty, and risk of restoration failure require offset ratios that far exceed what is currently applied in practice, and that restoration offset policy therefore leads to a net loss of biodiversity. Similarly, Schoukens and Cliquet3 conclude that given the limitations of restoration "a reinforcement of the preventative approach is instrumental in averting a further biodiversity loss within the European Union" (our emphasis).
1.11. The draft strategic policy for biodiversity restoration (SP3) proposed in the Draft Minerals Plan is inadequate because it fails to set restoration objectives in the context of the 'mitigation hierarchy' that is recognised in current planning policy that aims to halt the loss of biodiversity. The hierarchy involves, sequ entially:
* Avoidance: by ensuring impacts on biodiversity must are avoided or reduced through the use of alternative development sites;
* Minimisation: by taking measures to reduce the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts that cannot be completely avoided;
* Rehabilitation/ restoration: by measures taken to improve degraded or removed ecosystems following exposure to impacts that cannot be completely avoided or minimised; and,
* Offset: by measures taken to compensate for any residual, adverse impacts after full
Implementation of the previous three steps of the "mitigation hierarch

In addition developers should demonstrate that the timespan and implementation of the restoration plan is ecologically meaningful and can be sustained over that period. Unless there is serious and demonstrable commitment to restoration at the outset, efforts for biodiversity-led restoration in any scheme are likely to be unsuccessful. The requirements on adequate aftercare contained in DM12 should be reflected more strongly in the text related to SP3, namely that :
Restoration proposals will be subject to a minim um five year period of aftercare. Where proposals or elements of proposals, such as features of biodiversity interest, require a longer period of management the proposal will only be permitted if it includes details of the period of extended aftercare and how this will be achieved. {NMPCD para 5.118, point 9)
And it should be applied in the evaluation of proposals.

1.13. We therefore object to the plan on grounds that the policy for biodiversity led restoration is inadequate because it fails to place such measures in the context of a meaningful mitigation hierarchy which ensures that the preventative approach should be prioritised to avert a further, avoidable biodiversity loss across the County. It also fails to develop adequate requirements for aftercare where restoration takes place. As a result its application as a criterion for site allocation is flawed because it does not meaningfully discriminate between proposals in terms of the likely success of biodiversity-led restoration.
Ques tion 6: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?

1.14. We are supportive of the statements contained in Policy SPS, and in particular those relating to the need to encourage su stain able forms of transport such as barge and rail. We are however, disappointed that this policy objective has not been applied in the sub sequent allocation of sites, and therefore object to the Draft Plan because there is a mis-alignment bet ween policy and practice. We will develop this argument further in section 9 of this document in relation to the sites in the Nottingham area.
1.15. Focusing specific ally on the wording of SPS we agree that consideration does indeed need to be given to the distances over which minerals need to be transported. However, this is treated in a simplistic way in the policy statement, point 2a). Close proximity to market is an issue, but this statement also needs to be qualifi ed to emphasise a proviso that that this does not result in sites with the greatest social, environmental and landscape impacts being allocated in preference to others with lesser impact. In other words, proximity to market is one factor but not an overriding one. If it is given too much emphasis in site allocation then this would undermine other policy objectives set for the Plan.
1.16. 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 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 not withstanding their proximity to market.
Question 7: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built environment?

historic and natural

1.17. We are concerned by the poor structure of this Policy statement,and are especially disappointed in that this policy's objectives have not been applied in the subsequent allocation of sites. We therefore object to the Draft Plan because there is a mis-alignment between policy and practice. Again, we will develop this argument further in the section relating to consultation question 11 in relation to the sites in the Nottingham area. The misalignment arises because of the weak and over-generalised nature of the formulation of SPG.
1.18 . Since this policy concerns the need to conserve and protect built, historic and natural assets, it is misleading to refer to the opportunities of restoration once they are damaged or removed (Para 3.46). The policy needs to state that there are circumstances in which minerals development (despite the opportunities for restoration) may not be appropriate because of the initial or ongoing impact and loss it will entail for the built, historic and natural assets. Thus paragraph 3.56 needs to be expanded to include natural and built assets, placed at the head of the section on Policy SPG, and the policy then actually needs to be designed around it.
1.19. In general terms, policy, if it is to be meaningful, needs to shape and guide action or change the way people and organisations do things for the better. We object to the current structure of SP6 because it fails to do this. It is unduly focussed on some of the constraints that need to be considered by developers in making proposals, and the requirements of an environmental impact assessment should one be required. By contrast, it fails to set out how this policy would relate to decision making, and in particular the allocation of sites in a mineral plan, given the requirements of the NPPF.
1.20. For example, in relation to nature conservation the policy should, given the supposed strategic remit of SPG, make reference to paragraph 117 of the NPPF. This states that planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets and that policies should seek to preserve ecological networks as well as restoring and recreating them. Para 117 of the NPPF also requires the identification of suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in a plan. Further considerations also include those relating to the off-site impacts of developments on SSSls and other designated areas.
1.21. In the context of nature conservation it is also essential to include the requirements of the recent update of the NPPF, which in para 175 states that: 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 reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Wholly exceptional includes infrastructure projects (e.g. nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport & Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.
1.22. While the requirements of the NPPF clearly apply to individual planning applications, they must also apply to the minerals planning process itself which involves assessing sites relative to each other across a range of criteria relating to the built, historic and natural environment.
Unless a site allocation methodology is devised that reflects the requirements of the NPPF then it is likely that the outcome would be the promotion of unsuitable locations. Policy should therefore state how it will operate given the requirements of the NPPF in allocating sites and in identifying those that are unsuitable given the scale and nature of their impacts.
1.23 . We object to the formulation of Policy SP6 because of the lack of transparency in the way it will be applied in the site allocation process. The emphasis on restoration throughout should be reduced and the importance of protection and maintenance of assets stressed.
Question 8: What do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire Green Belt?

1.24. We are disappointed with the text of the policy statement on Green Belt {SP7) which fails to fully reflect the important sections of the NPPF on this topic. We therefore object on grounds of its narrowness and the lack of any clear statement about how any policy on the greenbelt would be applied in the minerals planning process.
1.25. . The NPPF and Government (para 79) "attaches great importance to Green Belts" and states (para 87) very clearly that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances: "inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances". Although this element of the NPPF is reflected in the second bullet point of SP7, the policy fails to note that the NPPF states that:
"When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations" (Para 88)
1.26. 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. In particular, 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.
1.27. 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?

Comments on Plan's approach to the location of future sand and gravel quarries

1.28. The issues and options analysis published in March 2018 evaluated five policy options:
A. Geographical spread across the County
B. Prioritise specific areas
C. Prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge
D. Allocate sites based on their individual merits
Use criteria based policy approach.
1.29. It concluded that "Options A and C scored equally favorably and were more sustainable than the other options". We make objection to this conclusion as the analysis which led to it is flawed. Our reasons are as follows:
* As is acknowledged in the summary on Page SO there is " considerable uncertainty" as to the possible impacts of the options on the sustainability objectives; half of them were not included in the scoring due to lack of detail. As a result of such uncertainty, a precautionary approach would suggest that sustainable outcomes are more likely to be achieved if sites are considered on their individual merits than by the application of general criteria such as geographical spread.
1.30. The flawed logic used in the analysis is evidenced by the commentary against:

* Criterion 2 'Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest': We argue that if sites are considered on their individual merits then this is more likely to result in safeguarding than if they are overridden by criteria such as geographical spread. We therefore argue that option D should be rated as positive.
* Criteria 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14: The same logic as applied to criterion 2 also applies to these objectives. If overall impacts of minerals development are to be minimised then
the negative outcomes can only be minimised by considering sites on their merits. We therefore argue that option D should be scored as positive across all these criteria.
* Criterion 3 'Promote sustainable patt erns of movement and t he use of more sustainable modes of transport': The commentary states that geographical spread is likely to result
in sites being closer to markets thus reducing road haulage distances. Such a conclusion could only be support ed if a detailed geographical analysis of t he market had been done. It has not. The closest to such an analysis is the commentary provided on page 44-45 of the Draft Sit e Selection Methodology and Assessment, which focusses almost exclusively on the local market. However, the 2017 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates Assessment shows that:
o more than half of the sand and gravel extracted in Nottinghamshire is exported (para 3.9);
o that there is considerable import of sand and gravel in the south across the County boundary (para 3.11); and,
o that average annual haulage distances are approximately 35 miles and increasing (para 3.13).
Thus there is considerable uncertainty about the location of the actual market and the geography of patterns of supply and demand. As a result this objective should be scored as uncertain or unknown rather than positive for Option A Criterion 3.
* Criteria 3 and 7: The analysis is biased toward Option A because the issue of minimising road haulage is counted twice. Climate change impacts (Criterion 7) are assumed to be minimised by wider geographical spread of sites because of market proximity. Such an assumption is uncertain as we have shown above. However, the issue of double counting would apply even if a more robust analysis of the geography of the market was available. Reference to road haulage should therefore be removed from criterion 7 and it scored as uncertain because the extent to which sites minimise impact on climate can only be assessed in a case by case basis (i.e. on their merit s using criteria such as th e amount of emissions per ton of aggregate extracted). If transport is to be included then the ability
to provide alternative modes of haulage such as barg e transport should be used here (note that para 3.24 of Appendix 1 to Nott inghamshire Minerals Local Plan Draft Plan Consultation st ates that given that it is not always possible to locate sites close to markets and minimise road transport " the promotion of alternative, more sustainable fo rm s of transport such as barge or rail transport is important " ).
1.31. A precautionary approach to the evaluation of the impacts of the five options on the sustainability objectives would therefore suggest that option D has been inappropriately and negatively scored relative to Option A. The preferred options that meet the County's sustainability goals are clearly C and D, rather than A and C. We therefore object to the draft Minerals Plan on these grounds and suggest that the options selected should be revised to reflect a more accurate and robust analysis of their likely impacts on the County's sustainability appraisal objectives.
1.32. The revision of the findings on the sustainabilit y appra isal to emphasise the contributions of options C and D would ensure that the Draft Plan is better aligned with the results of t he public consultation, as is evidenced by the commentary under 'What you told us at the Issues and Options stage' on page 59 of the Draft Plan Consultation document . The commentary not es that responses were split in relation to the importance of geographical spread and that "Generally, respondents felt that prioritising specific geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, inste ad, each site should be judged on its own merits".
Application of the Site Evaluation Methodology

1.33. We object to the application of the site evaluation methodology on grounds that it is both flawed and applied inconsistently.
1.34. We suggest that geographical spread can be used as a criterion to decide between sites all other things being equal. In other words if sit es had similar environmental and social impacts then those more widely spaced might be selected over a more concentrated distribution . By identifying geographical spread as an over-riding factor, the current draft plan shift s impacts to more potentially damaging sites as is evidenced by the commentary on Mill Hill near Fabis on a e 55 of the Ora Site Selection Methodology and Assessment
document. In thi s commentary the high negative impacts on biodiversity, landscape and the historic environment are acknowledged, but the sit e is selected nonetheless on grounds of geography, even though there are less damaging sites in other parts of the county (e.g. Coddington or Shelford).
* Although Strategic Objective 1 of the Draft Plan states that it should seek to 'secure a spatial patt ern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nott inghamshir e' it should be noted that no analysis of the ways in which different possible spati al configurations of sites might meet this objective are provided. NCC have confirm ed {30/8/ 1 80 that "There is no published dat a relatedto the geographical spread for the part icular allocation of sit es". As a result claims that the Draft Plan can actually deliver this Strategic Objective are unfounded.
* The lack of a detail ed analysis is surprising since it is possible to develop an overview of demandby taking the % of t otal hou sebuilding in each area as a reasonable guide as to w here quarry sites should be located. Although house building accounts only for between
20 to 35% of total aggregate production, where houses are built is where jobs are created with associated commercial buildings and major infrastructure projects and local infrastructure such as roads and schools-thereby equating to a higher percentage. Table 1 provides an estimate of the distribution of house development in Nottinghamshire; it shows that about 56% of the demand is in the Nottingham area.
* Table 2 uses figures provided in the NDMPC for the total requirement in the plan period and the amount available after export; we use 40% and 50% export levels for the analysis. We focus particularly on the est imates of the requirement in the Nottingham area of 10.89mt, and 9.08mt respectively, and the extent to whi h this estimated demand is met by alt ernative site allocations in the Nottingham area.
* Table 3 shows the extent to which the sites allocated in the Nottingham area meet the
estimated demand with 40% and 50% export. With the allocation of East Leake (approved), East Leake (extension) and Mill Hill Barton in Fabis there is a deficit in the proportional supply to the Nottingham area of between 4.8 and 2.99mt.
* However, if the larger Shelford sit e was allocated instead of the smaller Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site then these deficits would be lessened or eliminated(Table 4).
* The analysis suggests that by the inclusion of Shelford, for example, a better geographical spread is achieved than is realised by the current Draft Plan. If as a consequenceBotany Bay were also removed from the plan, the inclusion of Shelford would move 3mt of output from North Nottinghamshir e to South Nottinghamshir e whereit is most needed.
* Consequently, the statement in the 'Sites Assessment Methodology' on the Shelford site that ''The size of this site is such that if it were allocated, provision would be limited in other parts of the County and this would not comply with the objective of maintaining a geographical spread of mineral sites across the County" is manifestly wrong.

1.35. In further considering the criterion to 'Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the
use of more sustainable modes of transport', it is also manifestly wrong to conclude that the proposed site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis is closest to developments likely to take the
output from quarries in the south of the County. We have made an analysis of the current situation as part of our earlier response to the planning application made for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and looked at the status of the locations of potential developments and the quarries which already are or could potentially serve them. The developments and quarries considered are shown in Table 5, which also shows the distance to the nearest quarries and the distance to the proposed sit e at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis. Shelford Wharf has been included as this is a proposed barge terminal close to Trent Lane,Trent Bridge to which some 40% of the material from the Shelford site would be delivered.
For the analysis shown in Table 5 we recognise that it may be financially viable for other quarries to the north of Nottingham and further in to Derbyshire or Leicestershire to supply the projects identified, but we have focused only on the closest in terms of travel distances to simplify the picture.
* Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site is significantly further than alternatives to the major infrastructure projects of the East Midlands Rail Freight Hub and Taton (HS2);
* Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site is not significantly nearer to two of the three major areas in Rushcliffe allocated for the sustainable urban extension (i.e. Gamston and Ed walton). While it is obviously closest for the Clifton West and Clifton Pasture s development the proportion of the output required here is small in relation to proposed total output (ca 1 year's output) and so does not by itself justify development
* Shelford is equally well placed to provide output to these developments as Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and with the development of more sustainable barge transport via Shelford Wharf would be significantly more so.
1.38. It is also important to note that given the impacts associated with the Shelford site are less than that at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and the reallocation of this site in the Minerals Plan
would also reduce the overall social, environmental and landscape in line with SOS, SO6 and SO7.
1.39. However, as we have shown in Section 1, the emphasis given to geographical distribution as an overriding factor in the site selection criteria is, in any case, flawed. The subsequent application of the Options A and C in the site selection process is also inconsistent and as a result we make a further objection to the conclusions drawn. We focus particularly on the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site. Our grounds are as foll ows:
* Despite Option C (Prioritise locations with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge) being identified as a priority in site selection none of the sites selected meet this criteria, although some of those rejected (e.g. Shelford) do. The documentation shows that the operator at Shelford proposes to transport 40% of output via barge but there is no rationale provided for why this site has not therefore been prioritised as the adoption of Option C requir es.
* On the basis of the scoring applied in the site assessment methodology the combined environmental impact of the development of Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis and Botany Bay would be greater both during the operational and long-term phases, than the single site at Shelford (see Table 7, Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report); the development of one site rather than two is likely to result in less overall impact and on these ground thi s strat egy is likely to better address the County's
sustainability goals.
1.40. We therefore 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 supposed to underpin the Draft Plan:
* No evidence is provided to show that the allocation of Shelford rather than Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and Botany Bay, would limit the ability of the plan to ensure a spread of quarries, given the average distance travelled by aggregates is roughly 35 miles and increasing (see para 3.11, 2017 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates
assessment .
* No evidence or argument is provided for the omission of the priority for barge tran sp ort in the selection of sites; and,
* The current application of the site allocation methodology in the Draft Plan result s in greater adverse impact on the environment than otherwise would be the case, despite the requirements of the Draft Plan that future minerals development in Nottinghamshire should meet :
o Strateg1c Objective 1 'Improving the sustainability of minerals development' by making use of sustainable modes of transport
o Strategic Objective 6 'Protecting and enhancing natural assets' by conserving and enhancing Nottinghamshire's natural environment, including its distinctive landscapes, habitats, geology, wildlife species and ecological health of water bodies by avoiding, minimisin g and mitigating potential negative impacts'.
o Strategic Objective 7 'Protecting and enhancing historic assets' by protecting and where appropriate enhancing Nottinghamshire's distinct historic environment and ensuring herit age assets and their settings are adequately protected and where appropriate enhanced.
1.41. . Paragraph 4.19 is therefore incorrect and the conclusion drawn is wrong. Sand and gravel can only be worked where it is found, but it does not follow that geographical spread is the only way to ensure continued supply. Moreover, minimisation of HGV transport is only one criterion that must be used to make site allocations. As we have shown this is inconsistent with the stated policy objectives in the consultation document, because it overlooks the relative impacts on built, natural and heritage assets, and the Green Belt arising at individual sites.
1.42. 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 in order to minimise the likely overall environmental impacts of the Draft Plan;
* the criterion for prioritising barge transport should be applied on grounds of consistency; and,
* geographical spread should only be used to make decisions between sites when all other aspects 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 an unquantified market is not an 'exceptional circumstance' as envisaged by the NPPF.
1.43. Finally, in terms of the specific case of the sites at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, and Botany Bay, a transparent rationale needs to be provided as to why these sites are included rather than Shelford, when (a) the likely impacts of the latter are less; (b) the opportunities for prioritising barge transport are greater; and (c) given the average haulage distance for aggregates it is as well placed to serve the needs of the local market as the other two.
Evidence also needs to be provided to support the claim that allocation of Shelford, rather
than the sites at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis and Botany Bay, would limit the ability of the plan to ensure a spread of quarries.
Site Assessment for Mill Hill, Barton In Fabis

1.44. The site assessment made for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis shows it to be one of the most negatively affected should development be permitted. As we have argued there is no coherent statement in the plan as to why this finding should be ignored and the site allocated, when there are other sites where impacts would be less serious. In fact, we would suggest the scale of the impacts for the Mill Hill site have been under-estimated, making the decision even less secure. We therefore object to the assessment made of the Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis site.
1.45. The mis-representation of the conditions and associated impact s at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis are as follows. We base our response on evidence in the public domain and that generated by the recent planning application for the site. It appears that the Planning Policy Team in assessing the site has failed to take account of the detailed comment s and information already available and provided by consult ees as part of the planning application process which has result ed in objection s and concerns by such bodies as RSPB, Nott s Wildlife Trust, Natural England , CPRE, Ramblers Associati on, Barton in Fabis Parish Council and indeed t he Count y Council's own officers.
Criterion 2: Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest.
* The evidence relating to the biodiversity status of the site and its surroundings point to an assessment that the impact during th e operational phase is very negative (-3) and in the long-term as negative (-2). The dr aft assessment fails to: recognise the importance of the site at the landscape scale, promote the preservation of existing ecological network s and the population s of priority species they support; and recognise or mitigate the significant on-sit e impact on LWS and off-sit e impacts on SSSls. As a result the allocation of the site is not consistent with the objectives of S06 or SPG.
o The claim made by Greenfield Associates in para 8.1.10 of their submission document dated January 2018 that the ecological effects are minor are misleading and highly simplistic.
* Approximately two thirds of the habitat within the proposed sit e consist s of habitat s of Local or Nation al Conservat ion Importance. Nine Local Wildlife Sites will be directly or indirectly impacted upon during the operational period; Borrow s Pit (LWS,) which is within the sit e boundary, has been omitted from the Site Appraisal Matrix. Only partial mitigation by using appropriate buffers will be possible and a number of t he LWS will be destroyed entirely.
* The ancient woodland status of Brandshill Wood and Clift on Wood has not been considered, and the potential impact of changes in hydrology, dust and noise factored into the analysis.
* There are extensive areas of BAP habitat within the site which will be lost, including
neural and semi-improved grassland marshy grassland, scrub, hedgerow, ditch and floodplain grazing marsh. All these habitat s have target s for their conservation and protection. Restoration of the site would not effectively compensate or restore these existing ecologically high value habitats. The long-term impact is to herefore negative rather than slightly negative.
* The SSSls of Att enborough and Holm e Pit are adjacent to the proposed site and both will be adversely affected during the operational phase and long-term. Attenborough is important for a number of bird species will be impacted by noise and permanent loss of feeding areas. The water quality of Holme Pit will be impacted during periods of flooding. Flood patterns and t heir imp act relative to Holme Pit have not been considered in the design and operati on of the proposed site.
* The site also holds a number of species of national or local importance, including bats, harvest mouse, grass snake and common toad. There are many species of red and amber listed birds including noise/ disturbance sensitive species such as barn owl , Cetti's warbler
and long-eared owl. Importantly the site hosts a diverse invertebrate fauna including the endangered beetle, Carabus monilis. All of these species will be subject to severe adverse impacts.
* The restoration plan for this site does not maximise BAP priority habitats for the area and there is no significant biodiversity compensation achieved as a result of proposed restoration measures. Indeed the nature of the "Alternative working proposals/buffer zones to retain/protect LWSs and SSSls" mentioned under mitigation are not specified and it is inappropriate to include them in the assessment. Moreover the time span over which restoration is proposed (5 years, see Para 9.1.4 of Site Proposal by Greenfield Associates, dated January 2018) is inadequate (see NMPCD para 5.118, point 9) ecologically so that the measures are unlikely to be successful.
o The claim made by Greenfield Associates in para 9.1.5 of their submission document dated January 2018 that restoration is likely to be beneficial in the long-term is
therefore unfounded.
Criterion 3: Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the use of more sustainable modes of transport.
* The proposal only includes road haulage and so cannot be considered as offering 'sustainable' modes of transport. At best this criterion should be scored as 0.
Criterion 4: Protect the quality of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings above and below ground.
* The assessment underestimates the impact on historic environment, heritage assets and their settings especially in the long-term by virtue of the resulting negative impact on the historic environment post restoration in respect of the setting and significance of Clifton Hall.
* Barton in Fabis Parish Council recently produced a detailed assessment of the historic cultural links between Clifton Hall (Grade 1 listed) and Barton in Fabis which highlights the importance of the historic environment of the Mill Hill Site to the setting of Clifton Hall. The assessment was sent to the council's heritage officer, Jason Morden, to Tim Allen at Historic England and to Nancy Ashbridge, Landscape Architect at Via East Midlands Ltd. The evidence presented clearly shows that the operation and restoration of the site would have a major impact on the setting of Clifton Hall and its Registered Parks and Gardens. Since these impacts are significant the allocation of the Mill Hill is inconsistent with the third bullet point of Policy SP3 (NMPCD page 39). The long-term impact should be regarded as at least as negative as during the operational phase and both should arguably be set, as a minimum, at -2.

Criterion 5: Protect and enhance the quality and character of our townscape and landscape.

* The assessment given in the Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 is inconsistent with the summary it provided in the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment also published in July 2018. The former gives scores of -3 under both the operational phase and long term (Page 19). However, the latter
erroneously states that "As a result of the above assessment, whilst the site has high landscape impacts and the sustainability appraisal reports very negative impacts in the operational phase, the se become slight negative impacts in the long term." Clearly the text should state that it is a site of high landscape impact both in the short and long term.
* The fact that the assessment finds that the landscape impact scores as maximum in the operational phases and long-term, and since these scores 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 the Policy SP6.
* The impact of the proposed development on the Green Belt 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 therefore be considered inappropriate development. As th ere are no special circumstances of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm caused to th e Green Belt in this area it is th erefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies EN14 and EN19 of th e Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan.
* In relation to landscape it should also be noted that the mitigation measures summarised in Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 are inconsistent with what is being proposed. For example, it is suggested that there will be retention of ridge and furrow landscape, when in fact the development will remove it entirely. If such retention is proposed then the size of the site and the potential output would be considerably reduced.
Criterion 6: Minimise impact and risk of flooding.

* The assessment is wrong in terms of the long-term impacts of the proposal at Mill Hill. The flood risk assessment madefor the current planning application for sand and gravel extraction at this site shows that the scheme at best is neutral in terms of its impacts on
r-- - - - - - - - - - - .flood risk. There are no measures proposed that would mitigate future flood risk and so at best the score awarded should be '0' and not '+l ' .
* Given that the flood assessment show s that generally the area is likely to experience increasing risk, a requirement of the proposal should be that flood mitigation measures are included in t he design so that these increased future risks are minimised.
* The commentary should include the potential risk of flooding and erosion to the high pressure gas main that bisects the site. There is a risk posed to critical infrastructure associated with this proposal.
Criterion 7: Minimise any possible impacts on, and increase adaptability to, climate change.

* The assessment scores shown in the Draft Minerals Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report of July 2018 are inconsistent with the commentary provided, and the scores awarded are misleading.
* The impacts during the operational phase is clearly negative, given the loss of habitat and the carbon stores associated with them, and the use of road haulage. Thus the score of '?' is probably not an accurate representation of the situation. In the long term the assessment states that the impacts could be positive or negative depending on the resilience of the flora and fauna and the details of the restoration. Since this is unknown then the score of +1 is again erroneous.
* We suggest that as a minimum both the operational and long-term phases should be scored as '?', and that the contribution of the proposed site to climate change adaptability is uncertain.
Criterion 8: Protect high quality agricultural land and soil.

* The assessment is in error in terms of the assessment of long term impacts, in that it states that it judges the impact to be positive given "Restoration to high quality agricultural land if that is possible". Such restoration is neither possible nor proposed. If it is proposed then this would reduce the area of BAP and Priority Habitat restoration . At best we suggest the long -term score should be the same as the operational phase, i.e. -
1.

Criterion 12: Protect and improve water quality and promote efficient use of water.

* The assessment scores this criterion as slightly negative (-1) reflecting "dewatering and discharges into watercourses". In fact the evaluation of the pending planning application has revealed serious concerns about the impact of the development (and specifically the location of storage heaps and lagoons) on the quality of water reaching the SSSI of Holme Pit as the result of flooding.
* There is now evidence from the flooding of April 2018 of the way flood waters move across the site, and we can show that flood waters typically overtop the banks of the Trent at Cottagers' Field and ran northwards towards and eventually into Holme Pit, before re-entering the river at below Clifton Hall. These waters cross the centre of the proposed site and especially the area where material will be stockpiled. Such uncontrolled events are likely to impact on the water quality at Holme Pit SSSI though siltation and nutrient input. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the quality of water
, -r_each-in-g Holm- e-Pit will in the long term improve given the uncertainties associated with
the restoration plan.

Criterion 13: Support wider economic development and promote local iob opportunities.

* The assessment only considers the wider economic impact and suggests that some jobs will be created locally. The assessment overlooks the fact that employment may be lost by the impact on agriculture in the area, and the loss of amenity and access on which the local equestrian centres depend. The impact is probably uncertain at best in the short
term.

Criterion 14: Protect and improve human health and quality of life.

* The appraisal correctly assesses the impact of the proposed site on human health and significant (-3) although the commentary justifying the score overlooks a number of serious issues.
* In relation to the Public Rights of Way it should be noted that Bridleway 3 is an extremely well-frequented, strategic route between Barton and Thrumpton in the country and Clifton and Wilford in the city. As the site access road and gravel conveyor will have to be crossed by the footpath this will have major impacts on users. Most significantly it will affect horse riders along the base of Brandshill Grassland by posing a safety risk. This should be flagged up in the commentary on the Site Appraisal Matrix.
* In addition the commentary should note the proximity of the proposed site to Attenborough Nature research and the riverside path along the Trent opposite the extraction site. Only the River Trent separates the site from Attenborough Nature Reserve which many people visit throughout the year; The RSPB publication 'Bigger and Better' estimates that 600,000 people visit Attenborough Nature Reserve annually. 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 the reserve. The planting of willow along the Barton bank of the Trent is immature, unsuccessful in places, and in any case obscures the open views across the flood plain which are of high amenity value.
* In terms of public access to the site it should also be noted that while it is described throughout the documentation in terms of its proximity to Barton in Fabis, it is also located close to Clifton. Inspection of the census data available from the NOMIS website shows that in 2013 the estimated population of people between 16-64 for the wards of Gotham, Clifton South and Clifton North was in excess of 19,000 people. This estimate does not include children or those older than 64. The assessment should therefore reflect the fact that the site represents the nearest countryside {<1k) to a significant number of people, and given that currently policy for promoting health and well-being includes promoting walking and other activities in green, tranquil areas, the development of the site would result in a significant loss of public amenity.
* It should be noted that in their submission document dated January 2018, Greenfield Associates fail to emphasise or take note of the proximity of the proposed site to Clifton
- - - - - - - - - - - a-Aa-i-ts-s ur-relfAe1Rgs.- The-maps--they-p.rov.ide -a re-alsO-OUtda tecLancLdcLno.Lsh.u.,.o,..,w,.._._..f.o..r. __
example, the retirement development at Lark Hill which is well within 400m of the processing plant. Their Para 8.1.2, is therefore inaccurate and misleading.
Summary of Revised Site Assessment Scores for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis
1.46. On the basis of the arguments presented above we suggest that a more realistic assessment of the operational and long-term impacts for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis would be -15 and -8 respectively. The adjusted individual scores are summarised in Table 6 alongside those presented in the draft site appraisal.
1.47. The negative impact of the allocation of the site at Mill Hill is significant, and given the evidence available does not support the summary on page 55 of Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment the which erroneously suggests that "in assessment against sustainability appraisal objectives, the site scores very negatively during the operational
phase and slightly negatively in the long term". The impacts are very negative in both the operational phase and the long term. As a result its allocation is clearly inconsistent with most of the key sustainability objectives and strategic policies that supposedly frame the minerals plan. We therefore object to the site allocation.
Table 6: Revised impact scores for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis.

1.48. We also object to the allocation because there is a lack of transparency in the assessment in terms of how the site is allocated on grounds of viability and location when the impact assessment clearly indicates that there are other sites where impacts are less serious. We
have shown that:
* the evaluation process leading to the inclusion of geographical spread as an
r- - - - - - - - - - - - --AbjeGtive-of--the-p lan-iS-flawed-and-tbat-.on-grounds of suc.tainability_site..s....s.".-'h""'o.._u.l.d... _
be considered on their merits;
* the goal of developing a spatially sustainable plan involves more than consideration of market geography, but also involves promoting a spatial distribution that is consistent with wider goals of sustainability (e.g. conservation and protection of most vulnerable and valuable sites); and,
* the summary provided on Page 55 of the Draft Site Selection Methodology and Assessment is inaccurately drafted and poorly constructed because the statement that allocation is appropriate is unconnected to the evidence that has been assembled in the appraisal matrix which is supposed to underpin any recommendation.
1.49. Minerals planning should be evidence-based. We therefore object to the allocation of the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, because the process by which the recommendation arose is flawed, and neither transparent nor credible given even the partial evidence-base identified by in the NMPDC.

Attachments:

Julian and Caroline Coles Rep

Comment

Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representation ID: 32438

Received: 28/09/2018

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Tarmac are supportive of the approach to work permitted reserves as well as allocating extensions to existing operations and through the provision of new greenfield sites. However there needs to be an allowance in the Plan for both non-allocated extensions and new greenfield sites to come forward to provide flexibility. There should not be a sole reliance on quarries physical location in the county. Disappointed that Besthorpe quarry east was not allocated and there is a clear need for the North Road east quarry and Burridge Farm proposals.

Full text:

Draft Plan Consultation
Section 2 -Overview, Vision and Strategic Objectives
Q1 - What do you think to the draft vision and strategic objectives set out in the
Plan?
Paragraph 2.3 identifies the significant overlap of housing areas, business and
employment between Nottingham and South Yorkshire as well as Lincolnshire,
Leicestershire and Derby which is supported. However, recognition should also be
made of the likely pull on mineral resources to meet the anticipated demands from
these growth areas. This could be as an additional feature to Plan 1 - overview of the
Plan area. Without this we consider that the plan is not positively prepared and fails
to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018).
Paragraph 2.27 identifies 'wider issues' which specifically refer to movement of
minerals both in and out the County. Opportunities to work with other Mineral
Planning Authorities to manage these movements is identified. However, these are
issues fundamental to securing steady and adequate supply of mineral from
Nottinghamshire and should be given more prominence throughout the document.
It is considered that the cross boundary relationship with neighbouring authorities,
particularly in regards to mineral supply should be identified taking into account:
1. cross boundary mineral supply from Nottinghamshire - eg to South
Yorkshire, and Leicestershire in light of their identified lack of available sand
and gravel resources and production capacity to meet demand over the Plan
period
2. The lack of available crushed rock/limestone resource within the County and
therefore the heavy reliance on import from adjoining Authority areas
3. The availability of infrastructure links - particularly good road network and
therefore links to market in assisting to secure mineral supply
4. The overlap of housing, business, infrastructure and employment links with
Derbyshire and Leicestershire are identified but there is currently no
reference to an overlap of mineral supply issues
5. The relationship with other mineral authorities and duty to cooperate in Plan
preparation should be referenced
6. The anticipated development needs for housing, employment and
infrastructure provision (including HS2)
Without the above factors being taken into consideration the Plan is not effective
and fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018).
The Vision
In general terms we would support the Vision. However, as well as safeguarding
mineral resource, in accordance with the NPPF the Plan should safeguard mineral
associated infrastructure.
Strategic Objectives
Strategic Objective 1 and a locational strategy to securing mineral supply is
supported. This approach maintains the spread of operations across the County and
maintains a security in supply to the specific markets that these serve. As well as
seeking to 'efficiently deliver resources', the objective should include 'effectively
deliver' resources to ensure that operational capacity in addition to permitted
reserves is available to meet anticipated demand.
The principle of Strategic Objective 2 is supported. However, as referred above, the
Plan should identify the anticipated demand from adjoining Authority areas, failure
to do so will render the plan un-sound as it will not meet the tests of soundness
within paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018) being positively prepared or effective. As well as
ensuring that sufficient resource is allocated to meet anticipated demand, ensuring
that the operational capacity of sites is sufficient to meet anticipated demand.
Strategic Objective 4 should make reference to ancillary infrastructure to take
account of, 'existing, planned and potential sites for the bulk transport, handling and
processing of minerals, the manufacture of concrete and concrete products and the
handling, processing and distribution of substitute, recycled and secondary
aggregate material' as advocated by paragraph 204(e) of the NPPF.
Strategic Policies
Policy SP1 - Sustainable Development
Question 2 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable
development?
No comments
Policy SP2 - Minerals Provision
Question 3 - what do you think to the draft strategic policy for minerals provision?
The general policy on minerals provision should ensure that the Plan maximises its
flexibility to respond to changes in demand. As we have advocated through previous
representations, the 10 years sales average alone does not give an accurate
portrayal of the demand scenario for Nottinghamshire. Closure of long established
sand and gravel quarries, non-replenishment of reserves, continuing impact from the
2008 recession on production capacity and production movements out of the County
have all impacted output from Nottinghamshire. The reduction in sand and gravel
output over the 10 year period should not be translated into a long term reduction in
demand in Nottinghamshire.
Section (a) of Policy SP2 states that the strategy will be to identify 'suitable land for
mineral extraction to maintain a steady and adequate supply of minerals during the
Plan period'. It is suggested that 'suitable' is unnecessary and could be removed.
Extensions to existing sites form a logical progression from an operating perspective
to secure additional mineral supply and are often sustainable and avoid needless
sterilisation. Tarmac encourages 'support' for extensions to ensure maximum
flexibility in securing continued supply from existing operations. All sites have an
operational limit/constraint which means that whilst they will continue to contribute
to demand, there will be a requirement for new greenfield sites to make up any
operational capacity shortfall and to provide an effective continuity when existing
operations become exhausted. The lead in period for development of a greenfield
mineral production site can be at least 5 years, and an overlap between existing
production and replacement production is likely to be required. At some stages of
the Plan Period it is therefore likely that there will be higher production capacity as
the transition between existing and replacement sites takes effect. Further
comments on the site specific approach to this and increasing flexibility in the Plan
are found below under the aggregate provision policies.
Policy SP2, section (c) and (d) allows for other minerals development on non
allocated sites providing that a need can be demonstrated and ensuring the
provision of minerals remains in line with wider economic trends through regular
monitoring. Reliance on the 10 year sales average influenced heavily by a recession
is not likely to reflect demand during a period of economic upturn/growth
particularly given the significant level of new housing and infrastructure planned for
during the Plan period. The strategy for minerals within the Plan needs to ensure
that there is certainty but also some flexibility and opportunity for operators to
invest in the development of mineral production sites throughout the Plan period
where there is a clear need for mineral supply to meet demand which cannot
otherwise be met. The annual LAA documents should be used to assist in that
process.
Policy SP3 - Biodiversity led Restoration
Question 4 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for biodiversity led
restoration?
Whilst Tarmac support paragraph 3.12 and a 'restoration led approach' when
considering mineral operations, it is considered that a biodiversity led
approach/focus taken by Policy SP3 is overly onerous. As opposed to being
categorical about 'significantly enhancing' biodiversity, the policy should be
supportive where it is 'possible' or 'appropriate'. The policy as worded makes no
reference/acknowledgment to the beneficial use of land and the opportunities/
potential aspirations of landowners to have land restored back to
economic/commercial/agricultural after uses. Paragraph 3.14 goes part way to
recognising that there needs to be a balance/weighting of restoration considerations
but it neglects to reference the economic potential only social/recreation and
environmental opportunities. This policy should be reworded to provide emphasis
on a restoration focus to new mineral development without being overly prescriptive
of what restoration must be. In addition, the policy makes no acknowledgement of
the long term financial burden on ecological management post restoration and who
has to fund and manage these areas.
Paras 3.23 to 3.25 should commence with the wording 'If restoration allows, priority
habitats ... justified and effective in delivering the Plan and strategy to reflect the
comments made above.
Paragraph 3.28 discusses 'in some cases' restoration for leisure or agriculture may be
appropriate. Leisure and agricultural restoration are the most common forms of
restoration strategy. We agree with the sentiment that there are opportunities to
incorporate biodiversity/habitat enhancement but there should not be emphasis on
a biodiversity led approach.
Policy SP4 - Climate change
Question 5 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
In accordance with the NPPF, new development should be directed to areas outside
of flood zones. However, the policy as worded does not acknowledge that minerals
can only be worked where they are found. In the case of sand and gravel and river
sand and gravels working will often fall within areas of flood risk. Notwithstanding
this, the policy and sub text should acknowledge that minerals development is
considered an appropriate form of development within a flood zone in accordance
with the planning practice guidance, Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification,
Paragraph: 066 Reference ID: 7-066-20140306.
Policy SP5 - Sustainable Transport
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Whilst seeking to support the use of sustainable modes of transport, policy should
be worded to acknowledge/recognise the potential for impact upon the viability of
mineral extraction.
Minerals can only be worked where they are found. The requirement to be located
close to proposed markets is overly onerous. The value of the product and the
availability locally will determine the distance it needs to travel. It is considered that
this policy is overly onerous and discredits the geographical spread/locational
strategy which is being pursued by the Mineral Planning Authority. Such an
approach fails all the tests of soundness within paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018)
Policy SP5 should therefore be amended to read:
1. All mineral proposals should seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of
transport, including barge and rail where possible and viable
2. Where it can be demonstrated that there is no viable alternative to road
transport, all new mineral working and mineral related development should
be located as close as possible to the County's main highway network and
existing transport routes in order to avoid residential areas, minor roads, and
minimise the impact of road transportation.
The suggested amendments above will therefore negate the requirement for
paragraph 3.42 within the policy justification. Alternative modes of transport will be
supported within the provided that it can be demonstrated that to deliver it would
not affect the viability/deliverability of mineral sites.
Policy SP6 - The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
Question 7 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for the built, historic and
natural environment?
Tarmac support the recognition within paragraph 3.46 that detrimental impact on
the natural and built environment as a result of mineral extraction is temporary in
nature and can bring about many environmental benefits. In addition, paragraph
3.51 acknowledges that in regards to heritage and cultural assets, mineral
development provides major opportunities to understand the County's rich
archaeological heritage.
Policy SP6 as worded is overly onerous and does not recognise the weighting of all
facets of sustainable development that should be applied when considering
applications for development. In regard to mineral extraction, whilst there may be
potential for environmental impact, the economic benefit of mineral extraction
should be afforded 'great weight' (paragraph 205 of the NPPF). In addition, the
significance of impact depends on the significance of the asset it affects. Paragraph
171 of the NPPF states that Plans should, 'distinguish between the hierarchy of
international, national and locally designated assets' in regards to conserving and
enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 184 of the NPPF recognises a similar
approach for the historic environment in that assets should be conserved in a
manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 3.58 refers to Landscape Character Assessment which, 'can be used to
provide special protection to a specific feature'. As we have previously advocated,
whilst Landscape and Biodiversity Mapping is helpful as a baseline for looking at
potential for impact, these documents cannot be viewed or utilised in isolation and
the combined benefits of mineral extraction or opportunities for restoration
enhancement should be afforded weight as opposed to a negative constraint to
development.
Paragraph 3.63 should be deleted. As we have referred to above, mineral
development can only be worked where it is found. It is also a water compatible use
constituting appropriate development within a flood zone as advised within Planning
practice guidance, Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, Paragraph: 066
Reference ID: 7-066-20140306.
Paragraph 3.66 should be deleted as issues associated with infrastructure is handled
under the provisions of the Mining Code.
Policy SP7 - The Nottinghamshire Green Belt
Question 8 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for the Nottinghamshire
Green Belt.
The final bullet point of Policy SP7 should be amended. Paragraph 3.78
acknowledges that, 'it is likely that suitably designed, landscaped and restored
mineral workings can be accommodated in the green belt'. Whilst it is correct that
minerals development would need to meet the tests within the NPPF on green belt,
a requirement for higher standards of working is unnecessary as is restoration to
enhance the beneficial use of the green belt. This fails to meet the tests of
soundness within paragraph 35 of NPPF (2018) as it is not consistent with national
policy. Ensuring that the operation and restoration is compatible with green belt
objectives is a more appropriate strategy and reflective of the NPPF.
Policy SP8 - Minerals Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and Associated Minerals
Infrastructure
Question 9 - what do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding,
Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
Policy SP8 should refer to 'known' locations of specific mineral resource as opposed
to 'economically important' in accordance with paragraph 204 of the NPPF. Whilst
we agree that known resources should not be sterilised by non mineral
development, the policy should be clearer that all Mineral Safeguarding areas will
become Mineral Consultation Areas.
It is considered that the Minerals Plan would be more effective if it was to define
more specific Mineral Consultation Areas. The proposed approach to define
consultation areas on the same scale as safeguarding areas could mean that large
amounts of development will be caught within an MSA/MCA which would be
onerous on developers having to potentially submit minerals assessments and the
MPA in assessing the potential for impact of development on mineral
resource/mineral associated infrastructure.
As well as safeguarding mineral associated infrastructure, rail heads should be
expanded to include rail heads at coal fired power stations. A wharf facility at
Colwick is specifically referenced for safeguarding. Tarmac has existing river wharf
facilities at Besthorpe Quarry (loading) and Cromwell Quarry (receiving) which
should also be referenced and marked on the Policies Map. The river wharf facility at
Besthorpe Quarry last operated in 2013 but has been retained in a mothballed state.
It is possible that the wharf facility will be put back into use and therefore it should
be identified and safeguarded. Tarmac also has a river wharf facility at Cromwell
Quarry which should be safeguarded within the Plan. Cromwell Quarry has been
promoted at the 'call for sites' exercise for receiving sand and gravel from the
Burridge Farm site near Newark. The Cromwell Quarry river wharf operates
periodically for receiving river dredging, either for processing and sale or disposal
within the quarry site to enhance restoration of the site. The Cromwell Quarry site is
an important facility for the long term dredging operations carried out to maintain
water navigation on the River Trent and the site should therefore be safeguarded for
continued operation throughout the Plan period.
The importance of Local Plan's (District and Borough Council) in understanding and
appreciating the role of safeguarding and defining areas/sites within Local
Development Plan Documents should be explained within the Mineral Plan. The
Planning system is a tiered system with the policies contained within the Mineral
Plan and Local Plan pertinent to the consideration of Planning Applications at County
and District level. The MPA has an important role in ensuring mineral safeguarding is
not perceived as just a County function but guiding and supporting Local Authorities
to appreciate they also have a role to play in accordance with the Planning Practice
Guidance.
In light of the above and the identification of safeguarding areas on the policies
maps Plan 4 is not required.
Paragraph 3.93 is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 204 (e) and should be deleted.
Policies should safeguard all ancillary infrastructure and the NPPF does not
distinguish that only strategic facilities should be safeguarded. Whilst it may be
unnecessary to identify all facilities on policies maps, the policy wording itself should
ensure that these facilities will be safeguarded.
Policies regarding safeguarding should make reference to the 'agent of change'
identified at paragraph 182 of the NPPF. This seeks to ensure that the onus is on
Applicants for new development to put in place adequate mitigation to ensure that
the development would not place unreasonable restrictions on existing
businesses/operations.
Minerals Provision
Policy MP1 - Aggregate Provision
Question 10 - What do you think of the draft policy approach towards aggregate
provision?
The 10 years average sales figures are not the most suitable methodology for
forecasting aggregate demand. National Policy states, forecasts of demand should be
based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data, other relevant information and
through assessment of all other supply options. The 10 years average sales are
heavily influenced by the impact of the recession. In addition, the movement of
production at Finningley outside the County boundary has effectively skewed the
perceived sales/demand. This is particularly apparent given the picture across the
East Midlands which in all other cases have seen increases in sales figures. Whilst,
recycled and secondary aggregate has a role to play in meeting demand in some
circumstances it cannot be relied upon for ensuring continuity in supply. In addition,
given the location of the County it is unlikely that demand can be met from other
sources (for example marine). Considering this, the other relevant local information
is particularly important in forecasting future demand in the County. Considering the
above the Mineral Planning Authority is underproviding sufficient sand and gravel
resource over the Plan period. We support the MPA in their previous approach
which reviewed sales data pre and post-recession to give a greater appreciation of
likely anticipated demand in recession and a period of economic growth.
The operational capacity of permitted operations within the County needs
consideration to ensure that anticipated demand is met. A decline in sales is not
necessarily an indication of a decline in demand. Production moving outside of the
County will impact upon perceived sales figures as well as sites/resource not being
replaced when exhausted.
A Delivery schedule has been prepared as Appendix 2 to the Draft Plan. Tarmac have
enclosed an edited version (Appendix 1a) which shows the available production
capacity from existing sites and proposed allocations as proposed within the Plan
against the identified annual requirement for sand and gravel. The sites proposed for
sand and gravel extraction including allocations are insufficient to even meet that
depressed annual requirement. An edited version is also enclosed at Appendix 1b
which shows how additional allocations could assist in meeting the identified
shortfall.
Although the landbank is sufficient at the start of the Plan period, sites will become
exhausted during the Plan period and provision should be made for replacements.
The Plan should not focus or specify a definitive/maximum amount of mineral
provision. The sales data is an indication of current demand and should not be
perceived as a maximum requirement. The Plan needs to provide flexibility to
support additional sites/resources coming forward during the Plan period to meet
demand/operational requirements to serve existing/future markets. Policy M1
should be updated to provide a more realistic sand and gravel provision figure which
is reflective of economic growth at pre-recession levels. As a minimum the policy
should be clear that the provision of sand and gravel, Sherwood Sandstone and
Crushed Rock are minimum requirements. Section 3 of the policy does not make any
allowance for the benefit of sustainable extensions to existing operations in securing
continued delivery of mineral as advocated by the Strategic Policy SP2.
Policy MP2 - Sand and Gravel Provision
Question 11 - What do you think of the draft site specific sand and gravel
allocations?
Tarmac are supportive of the approach to work permitted reserves as well as
allocating extensions to existing operations and through the provision of new
greenfield sites. There needs to be allowance in the Plan for both extensions and
new greenfield sites. However, the Plan should provide flexibility and policy should
be supportive in securing extensions to existing operations, this ensures a
continuation in supply without sterilising mineral reserves. Currently the Policy does
not support the strategic policy SP2. This could be achieved through an additional
criterion to Policy MP2 to allow for new mineral sites to come forward to continue to
meet demand subject to environmental considerations. The Plan needs to build in an
element of flexibility to address the issue of long term longevity of mineral
operations in Nottinghamshire - only 4 sand and gravel sites identified in Policy MP2
have long term and significant production capacity.
We support the Council in adopting a locational approach to mineral development
sites to ensure there is a spread in sites to meet anticipated demand. However,
operational capacity constraints still apply (imposed by plant capacity, planning
conditions or HGV routing agreements) which can limit production / distribution to
meet demand in some market areas. These are all important considerations in
locating new sites for mineral development. There should not be a sole reliance on
their physical location in the County. Besthorpe Quarry and Girton Quarry (currently mothballed) for example have vehicle movement restrictions through S106 planning
agreements which forces HGV routing northward. As a result those sites are
generally more aligned to the North Nottinghamshire / Doncaster / Humberside
market areas as opposed to Newark.
Tarmac are very disappointed and surprised that the Besthorpe Quarry East
Extension has not been included as an allocation in the draft plan. The permitted
resource and proposed allocations do not at any time over the Plan period meet the
proposed annual requirement for sand and gravel (1.7mt). The Tarmac revised
Delivery Schedule (appendix 1a and 1b) illustrates this point. The Council is
advocating an approach that gives preference to extensions to existing operations
and on review of the Sustainability Appraisal and Site Assessment supporting paper,
the eastern extension to Besthorpe Quarry is one of the best scoring sites in meeting
the sustainability objectives. There is a very clear and compelling case for the
Besthorpe Quarry East site to be allocated in the Plan.
There is also a clear case for additional allocation of green field sand and gravel sites
to be allocated to come into production during the Plan period. The serious decline
in sand and gravel reserves and projected production capacity in Leicestershire is
clearly evidenced through the Leicestershire Mineral & Waste Local Plan review and
sites have been promoted into the Nottinghamshire Local Mineral Plan review to
meet that identified shortfall and the consequential need for alternative supply from
adjoining authority areas. Tarmac's promoted site 'Great North Road (North)', near
Kelham meets that objective and would deliver a long term sand and gravel
production site with a sustainable output of 250,000 tonnes per annum to serve the
Nottingham and North East Leicestershire market over the plan period to 2036. The
Great North Road (North) site should therefore be allocated in the Plan.
The Great North Road (South) site has a proven significant future sand and gravel
resource which would provide a natural long term extension to the Great North Road
(North) site.
The combined sand and gravel resources at the "North" and "South" sites would
provide a stable long term supply facility to meet the likely strong demand for
construction materials in the Nottingham / NE Leicestershire markets throughout
and beyond the 2036 Plan period.
In addition, Tarmac's proposed new green field extraction site at Burridge Farm,
which is proposed to use river barge transportation to feed sand and gravel to a
proposed new processing plant at the former Cromwell Quarry site previously
operated by Lafarge, would also provide some additional support production
capacity in the second part of the Plan period. The Cromwell plant site is well
situated with good access onto the A1 interchange at Cromwell. The Burridge Farm
site would not have capacity to operate at high output levels due to likely physical
constraints on barge transportation along the River Trent through Cromwell Lock.
Appendix 1 to this letter illustrates the productive capacity of sites within the Plan
area with additional sites included as allocations. Appendix 2 to this letter includes
revised Sustainability Appraisal Matrices supplemented by additional evidence
where appropriate carried out as part of further site investigation work to support
Screening and Scoping submissions and Planning Application documents.
Policy MP3 -Sherwood Sandstone
Question 12 - what do you think of the draft site specific Sherwood Sandstone
allocations?
The LAA recognises the high level of export to markets outside the County due to
limited resources elsewhere. As per comments on sand and gravel, there is a need
where resource exists to maintain production and operating capacity to meet
demand. The Plan should identify appropriate extensions to existing operations or
new sites to meet demand. Identified demand based on sales is a minimum
requirement of the Plan and there should be flexibility built into the Plan to allow
sites to come forward. The plan should address anticipated demand from outside of
the County. As per comments on Policy MP2 an additional criteria regarding modest
extensions should be included to ensure flexibility in the Plan and to allow the
continued supply of Sherwood Sandstone which is not just important within
Nottinghamshire.
The Plan should recognise the unique properties of the sand as well as markets.
Colour variances as well as properties of the sand are also important factors and
therefore additional reserves (as allocations or new sites) should not solely be based
upon estimated demand based on sales figures.
Policy MP4 - Crushed Rock
Question 13 - what do you think of the draft policy to meet expected crushed rock
demand over the Plan period.
It is likely that there is a wider demand for crushed rock within the County than that
met by Nether Langwith. Crushed rock requirements are likely to be met from
imports to meet the demand within the south of the County to minimise the
distance crushed rock will need to travel.
Policy MP5 Secondary and recycled aggregates
Question 14 - what do you think to the draft policy regarding secondary and recycled
aggregate?
Support for the MPA in seeking the use of alternative aggregates and the
appreciation that there are limits on how far alternatives can substitute primary
aggregate. Whilst support for alternative aggregate should be encouraged in the
Plan, the contribution should be viewed as a 'bonus' over and above the required
amount of primary aggregate. This is reflective of the NPPF (para 204 (b)) which
states that local Plans should take account of the, 'contribution that substitute or
secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste would make'. The reduction in
ash materials from coal fired power stations is also likely to increase the demand for
primary aggregate over the Plan period to address this specific resource shortfall.
The approach to recycled aggregates reflects the Mineral Products Association Long
Term Aggregates Demand and Supply Scenarios Paper which indicates that the
potential for recycling has reached an optimum level (approximately 28-30%
volume).
Policy MP9 Industrial Dolomite Provision
What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for industrial dolomite over
the plan period?
Reserves of industrial dolomite are of international importance and the resource
itself is scarce with only a small number of sites within the UK. As such there will
always be a need for the resource, therefore the policy should be reworded to state
that:
'Proposals for industrial dolomite extraction will be supported providing that
development does not give rise to any unacceptable levels of environmental impact'.
Whilst additional resource areas do not need to be identified as an allocation, the
resource within Nottinghamshire should be identified within the Plan and recognised
as a proven resource to be safeguarded.
Development Management Policies
Policy DM1 - Protecting Local Amenity
Question 22 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM1: Protecting local
amenity?
No comments
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
Question 23 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM2: water
resources and flood risk?
It is considered that the use of 'detrimentally altered' is not an effective strategy as
there is no quantifiable method by which it can be monitored, nor severity of impact
measured. It is suggested that giving rise to 'unacceptable impacts' would be more
appropriate.
In regard to flooding, criterion 3. states that 'proposals for mineral extraction that
increase flood risk to local communities will not be supported unless the risks can be
fully mitigated'. This statement appears contradictory as in cases where 'risks can be
fully mitigated' the proposal would not 'increase flood risk to local communities'. As
such, the purpose/ intent of this statement is unclear, and it is recommended that
the policy is re-worded.
Policy DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality
Question 24 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3: Agricultural
land and soil quality
Whilst it is correct to protect and enhance soils (NPPF paragraph 170) and therefore
the best and most versatile agricultural land, the policy is not positively prepared nor
an effective strategy. Minerals can only be worked where they are located and in the
majority of circumstances this is in areas of countryside and often on agricultural
land. Notwithstanding this, with appropriate soil handling strategies the value of soil
resource can be retained, and the land restored for agricultural purposes.
The policy should be reworded as follows:
Policy DM3: Agricultural Land and Soil Quality
Agricultural land
Proposals for minerals development located on the best and most versatile
agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will be supported where it can be demonstrated
that where alternative options are limited to varying grades of best and most
versatile land, the development should be located within the lowest grade where
possible.
Soil quality
Measures will be taken to ensure that soil quality will be adequately protected and
maintained throughout the life of the development and, in particular, during
stripping, storage, management and final placement of soils, subsoils and
overburden arising's as a result of site operations.
Policy DM4: Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Question 25 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for policy DM4:
protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity?
Policy DM4 is onerous and not in compliance with the NPPF, particularly in regard to
the approach on local sites. Paragraph 175 of the NPPF advises that 'if significant
harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided...' Paragraph 2 of Policy DM4 should be
amended to reflect the significance of harm to allow a judgement to be made as
opposed to a blanket approach to all impacts. Placing populations of priority species
or areas of priority habitat alongside irreplaceable habitats (criteria d) also does not
distinguish between the value/significance of assets - irreplaceable habitats should
be given greater weight than areas of priority habitat. The distinction needs to be
made to ensure that development has the opportunity to present potential
mitigation or compensation strategies as required by part 2 of the policy.
Policy DM5: Landscape Character
Question 26 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM5: landscape
character?
Policy DM5 should reflect the guidance within the NPPF at paragraph 170 to 'protect
and enhance valued landscapes ... (in a manner commensurate with their statutory
status or identified quality in the development plan)'. Paragraph 171 goes further to
state that plans should, 'distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national
and locally designated sites' It appears that the policy is seeking to place a weight on
the impacts upon landscape character comparable to that of nationally designated
landscapes (of which there are none in Nottinghamshire).
The wording of Policy DM5 appears confused. The policy, as worded, implies that
minerals developments will only be supported if they do not result in an adverse
impact on the landscape and that harmful impacts can be adequately mitigated. In
situations where there is no available alternative to the development and the
development outweighs the landscape interest, the policy still requires that harmful
impacts are adequately mitigated.
Policy DM6: Historic Environment
Question 27 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM6: historic
environment?
Paragraph 184 of the NPPF recognises that assets should be conserved in a manner
appropriate to their significance. In regard to non-designated assets (part c of policy
DM6), the Policy is not consistent with paragraph 197 of the NPPF. In the event of
applications that directly or directly affect non designated assets, a balanced
judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the
significance of the asset. Paragraph 197 does not require there to be public benefit.
Paragraph 3.51 acknowledges that in regard to heritage and cultural assets, mineral
development provides major opportunities to understand the County's rich
archaeological heritage. Policy DM6 does not currently recognise this and should
refer to the NPPF requirement of assessment proportionate to the assets
importance (paragraph 189).
Policy DM7: Public Access
Question 28 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM7: public access
As worded policy DM7 part 1 and 2 are contradictory. It is considered that the policy
should be reworded as follows:
Policy DM7: Public Access
Proposal for mineral development will be supported where it is demonstrated that
development does not give rise to unacceptable impact on existing rights of way and
its users. Where proposals for temporary or permanent diversions are required they
should be of equivalent interest and quality.
Improvements and enhancements to rights of way networks will be supported and
where practicable enhanced public access to restored mineral workings will be
encouraged.
Policy DM12: Restoration, After use and Aftercare
Question 33 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM12: restoration,
after use and aftercare
Section 2 should refer to agricultural restoration. The economic long term use of
land should be recognised as should the long term aspirations of landowners.
Section 4 refers to 'satisfactory evidence' which is difficult to quantify. It is suggested
that just evidence regarding to sources of waste being available over an appropriate
timescale would be sufficient.
Policy DM14: irrigation lagoons
Question 35 - what do you think of the draft policy wording for DM14: irrigation
lagoons
The sub text refers to mineral 'usually being taken offsite for processing'. This should
be essential criteria as part of the policy to ensure that mineral extracted cannot
substitute/replace/prejudice extraction of resource permitted or allocated as a
mineral extraction site (as per part d of the policy)
Other Considerations
Monitoring
Given the concern regarding the anticipated demand for sand and gravel over the
Plan period, the Plan needs to set out a very clear strategy on monitoring and review
to ensure that it can respond quickly enough to changes in economic circumstances.
Sustainability Appraisal
General Comments
As we have stated as part of previous consultation responses on other MLP Drafts,
the weighting of each of the Sustainability Appraisal objectives should be explained
and how these will be used to assess the Plan policies and any sites promoted for
allocation. Currently the SA Objectives are heavily weighted to potential
environmental effect. However, economic and social facets of sustainability are
critical elements relating to minerals development - i.e maintaining supply, access
and proximity to market, beneficial restoration objectives, non-sterilisation of known
resource by promoting extensions to existing operations etc. Attention is drawn to
the NPPF and that 'minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth'.
As well as providing an 'adequate' amount, the SA has failed to take account of the
need to plan for a 'steady and adequate' supply of aggregate (paragraph 207). There
is a requirement for the MPA to recognise that as well as ensuring they have a
sufficient land bank of resource that the Plan maintains aggregate provision across
the whole Plan period - comments above on operational capacity are particularly
pertinent to this.
Site Specifics
As referred to above under the site specific Policy DM2, Tarmac have reviewed the
Sustainability Appraisal for their sites and provided additional evidence where
necessary to support proposed allocations (see appendix 2).
I trust that the above comments are helpful. Should you have any queries or wish to
discuss any of the points raised in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Attachments:

Tarmac Limited Rep