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

Sand and gravel provision MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis
I am writing to confirm i wish to object to the above site because I live at Lark Hill Retirement Village, which lies directly in line of the prevaling wind from the proposed site. All residents here are over 60 years, most over 75. The dust and noise would be a dangerous health hazard for all the residents. Please consider these facts. There are other sites that do not impinge so heavily on so many senior citizens, all in one relatively small location. Additionally I suffer from Asthma and once again I hate to think that we will be covered in dust as we were when the tram development was being constructed. Please note I object strongly.

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

Re: Sand and gravel provisions Site MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Regarding this plan, I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposed site. The site is extremly close to a residential area- Barton In Fabis village and can't avoid having a major impact on the quality of life for the residents. To impose such extensive and long term works so close to a residential area is entirely unreasonable. The noise and dust that will be created over a long period of time by the use of quarrying machinery and lorry movements will substantially reduce quality of life and may create some health risks.

The site is in a green belt area and adjacent woods- Brandshill and Clifton Woods are designated as Ancient Woodland- which will also be impacted by this proposed site.

Wildlife including Corn Buntings and Owls breed on the site and the area is rich in local wildlife. Furthermore, the Attenborough Nature reserve is very close by and many birds cross from there to these fields in the course of their natural habits.

Natural England, the RSPB, the CPRE, The Rambles Association and Nottingham Wildlife Trust have already objected, highlighting the commonly known fact that this area is a valuable resource for animal and bird life and for users of the countryside for leisure and nature watching purposes.

Other users include walkers, fishermen, horse riders and photographers.

There are bridleways and footpaths across the land that are fully used and appreciated by visitors and their loss would have a very detrimental impact on users.

Furthermore, the area has remains from Roman, Iron Age and Bronze Age and ancient ridge and furrow field pattern from the middle ages.

I live on the river bank at Trentside in an old raised wooden property and am therefore very aware of the flooding that occurs in this area. During the winter the water levels frequently breach the river bank and flood the fields extensively around my house, to the point where I and my neighbours must use boats to access our properties. These levels can remain for 2-3 weeks. it is hard to imagine how quarrying works in nearby fields at the same level can escape this threat as the water rises through the ground as well as over the river bank and is impossible to stop.

With this occurring in a working quarry environment there is a great risk of exposed earthworks being carried by flood water and contaminating the surrounding area and the river downstream. Any post flood pumping operations to remove water from the works could also carry a lot of contamination and sediment in to the river causing great potential environmental damage.

The pictures below illustrate the height the water can achieve.

This is a normal summer day.

This is a flood- the water has risen around 2.8 metres from summer levels and has surrounded the house and filled the adjacent fields as seen below.

I have a number of other images and film clips that show the flooding and these could be used by a surveyor to accurately measure the height of flood waters. I can make these available if required.

To summarize, the combination of the useage of the site by people for leisure, proximity to a residential area the presence of ancient rights of way, the natural habitats and natural beauty, the historical aspect and the flood risk surely combine to render the site unsuitable to be destroyed for the purpose of mineral extraction.

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

Dear Sir/ Madam,

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

If this site were used it may deter the elderly from choosing to live at Lark Hill. This would mean that more suitable housing would have to be found for them. It would be very difficult and expensive for the city council to find quality housing with all the activities which enable people to live a life of good health and well being thus making less demand on the health and social services. Thank you

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

Sand & Gravel Provision Site MP2s Mill Hill

Dear Sir

As a resident of Lark Hill Village I wish to object to the above site proposal.

The application completely ignores the fact that noise and pollution problems emanating from the site will make life for us intolerable. And this is before we consider the impact on the surrounding environment and amenities of the area.

This site is, I belive, within the green belt thus is should have protection against development and industrial usage and it is the councils responsibility to ensure that it remains.

The council must reject this proposal and state that more suitable sites are available which would not impact the surrounding areas in an adverse way.

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

Dear Sir/ Madam,

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

The noise pollution that the lorries using the site would produce.
The A453 already carries a significant volume of traffic and the development of this site would exacerbate the traffic problem in the area.
Fumes and toxic gases generated by the lorry movements will impinge on our health and well being. I believe that my personal breathing problems would be adversely affected by all the extra traffic generated especially as the A453 comes to a stand still.
Since the area is under increasing pressure to reduce pollution it cannot be a wise move to increase vehicle movements, by polluting vehicles, when there is an alternative site where river traffic could be used. The council cannot implore us to reduce car usage- as an aid to pollution control- and at the same time introduce a development which will rely heavily on polluting lorries. This suggests to me that the council may be speaking with forked tongue on this issue.

When one looks at the overall issues surrounding this application,
noise, dust, fumes- affecting the health of those of us unfortunately living at Lark Hill
Damage to historical sites and surrounding landscape
Loss of agricultural land
loss of leisure area
and a number of peripheral problems

then it is inconceivable that the County Council will even consider this. It must be, once and for all, rejected in the strongest possible way.

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

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

I object to the sand and gravel provision 'MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis' for reason listed below.

I object to this proposed sand and gravel quarry as this would destroy a valuable site for wildlife and also affect nearby areas, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (e.g. Attenborough Nature Reserve, Holme Pitt Clifton Woods and Grove).

This would remove the only footpath/bridleway to Barton in Fabis from Clifton. It would also remove the only bridleway going out of Clifton without using roads. The quarry would also be dangerous to horse-riders and walkers using the remaining rights of way due to noise, dust and traffic.

The dust will affect everyone living nearby (Barton/Clifton), apart from creating an unpleasant atmosphere it will cause harm to people with breathing difficulties/asthma living nearby.

I'd also like to add that I'm disgusted that my previous response to the last consultation on this is now being disregarded and that I have to resubmit my objections.

I object to the sand and gravel provision 'MP2S Mill Hill Nr Barton in Fabis' for reason listed below.

I object to this proposed sand and gravel quarry as this would destroy a valuable site for wildlife and also affect nearby areas, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (e.g. Attenborough Nature Reserve, Holme Pitt Clifton Woods and Grove).

This would remove the only footpath/bridleway to Barton in Fabis from Clifton. It would also remove the only bridleway going out of Clifton without using roads. The quarry would also be dangerous to horse-riders and walkers using the remaining rights of way due to noise, dust and traffic.

The dust will affect everyone living nearby (Barton/Clifton), apart from creating an unpleasant atmosphere it will cause harm to people with breathing difficulties/asthma living nearby.

Objection to Sand and Gravel Provision MP2S, Mill Hill, Nr Barton-in-Fabis.

Dear Sir/Madam,

If you build a quarry, animals will lose their homes, it will make lots of dust which is bad for the people, and it will mean that there will be traffic jams because there will be lots of trucks coming.

PLEASE DO NOT BUILD A QUARRY.

I OBJECT to Sand and Gravel Provision 'MP2s Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis'.
for the following reasons:
1. The proposed quarry will have affects on both Attenborough Nature Reserve SSSI which runs along the edge of the site (less than 100m away) and Holme Pitt SSSI. These contain 5 sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC's).
Many species of wildlife would be greatly effected from birds (24 Red and 22 Amber listed bird species), grass snakes, harvest mice, bats, otters, toads and other species that already have conservation concerns.
2. It will take 25 years for the site to re-establish and restore itself.
3. The Barton site has been evaluated as the 3rd most environmentally damaging site of all those proposed in the country by the County Council's independent Sustainability Assessment.
4. The County Council state gravel sandbank currently exceeds government targets. Why is this site needed?
5. I live very close to the proposed site and the noise pollution from the constant working machinery 11 hours a day, 6 days a week would be unbearable. I chose to live along the banks of the Trent for its peacefulness and tranquillity, also for my love of nature.
6. I walk my dogs on a daily basis in and through the proposed site, what provisions will be put in place for those that will be effected?
7. Building projects used to justify this application are either not due to start for several years or would be better supplied by quarries nearer to the individual build site.
8. The County Council is preparing a new Local Minerals Plan (MLP) which involves calculating future demand and independently comparing all potential requirements. It appears this application is attempting to get around the proper process.
9. The County Council has already rejected this site as part of the previous draft of the MLP for environmental and other reasons. Why is it being considered again with different wording?
10. The size and impact of the site and the 25 year plan for it. This is a long and constant impact on the area that would suffer greatly.
11. If the proposal goes ahead there will be a great deal of congestion at the roundabout on Remembrance Way, with the high number of lorries estimated to be leaving the gravel quarry per hour.
12. Loss of the peaceful tranquil nature of the area which is used for leisure purposes, including dog walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and nature photography, will have a huge impact on many people, as the site proposes to be open 6 days a week 11 hours a day.
13. The footpaths and bridleways that cross the site would have to be diverted or closed impacting on the area as a whole.
14. The history of the area which has remains from the Roman period and also Iron and Bronze age links documented along with the ridge and furrow field pattern from the middle ages, will be lost forever.
15. It will have an adverse effect on Clifton Hall and Clifton Village conservation area.
16. The machinery and plant will be working close to the bridleways and footpaths. This is a definite potential danger.
17. The resultant deep water ponds would be a risk to children, this I think is very valid with the death of the child at Beeston Weir.
Thank you for reading this and hopefully taking my points into consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory of health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.

REF: MP2s Sand and gravel provision at Mill Hill near Barton in Fabis

Dear sir,
I wish to object to the above . It does feel a little like 'Groundhog day' in that I thought the argument against this provision have been comprehensively set out previously.

However I wish to point out that both myself and my family use the area outlined for country pursuits ( walking, cycling and bird watching) and have done for over 10 years.
That the council could contemplate destroying this unique habitat is beyond belief. To have such an amenity area on the edge of a major city and accessible to all should be a jewel in the crown and not something to squander.

I believe that the proposal to destroy this area and introduce traffic and noise pollution is not necessary and shows lack of foresight at a time when we are trying to encourage our citizens to get moving and exercise!
I feel that the impact on both Holme Pit and Attenborough nature reserve would be extremely detrimental thus having impact on a much greater area and level than the outlined area.
Please look at the bigger picture !

I object to Policy MP2 regarding the inclusion of the Barton in Fabis Mill Hill site (MP2s) as the site is of significant environmental value in terms of biodiversity, landscape, the historic environment and public amenity. Furthermore, development of the site, together with the planned urban extension at Clifton Pastures and the former sand and gravel workings at Attenborough, would result in a major adverse cumulative impact on the landscape character of the area and the amenity of local communities both during the operational phase and following restoration.
A. BIODIVERSITY
It should be noted that Borrows Pit (LWS), which is within the site boundary, has been omitted from the Site Appraisal Matrix.
1. Ancient Woodland
The Site Appraisal Matrix fails to refer to the status of ancient woodland in respect of Brandshill and Clifton Woods. The latter is in close proximity to the site and Brandshill Wood lies immediately adjacent to the site boundary. Both will be subject to direct and indirect impacts through noise, dust, NOx and changes to hydrology and hydrogeology, with Brandshill the most affected. These impacts will undoubtedly lead to deterioration of the woodland.
The NPPF has recently been updated as follows:-
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:-
c) 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 reasons are described as:-
For example, infrastructure projects (including 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.
The proposed development does not fit this criterion and therefore the inclusion of this site does not comply with national planning policy.

2. Protected and Priority Species
The site is of significant ecological value and supports a diverse range of protected and priority species 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.
3. Holme Pit SSSI
There is the potential for flooding from the river Trent across the site to result in high volumes of sediment from worked areas and stored overburden being deposited in Holme Pit and thereby compromising water quality.
4. Attenborough National Nature Reserve SSSI
Due to the close proximity of Attenborough National Nature Reserve there will be impacts both from noise and loss of important grassland feeding habitats on the breeding and overwintering species using the reserve.
5. Impacts on Local Wildlife Sites
In total, nine Local Wildlife Sites will be directly or indirectly impacted upon during the operational period and these provide important ecological links within the surrounding area, including links with Holme Pit and Attenborough SSSI.
Furthermore, the current planning application for this site results in the complete loss of Barton Flash and the loss of part of Brandshill Grassland and Brandshill Marsh.
Such direct impacts are major and irreversible despite over optimistic claims by the consultants that Barton Flash can be recreated even though it takes centuries for such habitats to evolve. The inclusion of this site in the Minerals Plan would therefore result in the loss and deterioration of irreplaceable habitats and does not demonstrate any benefits in respect of net gains for biodiversity. There are less ecologically damaging sites available and therefore this site should not be included in the Draft MLP.

6. BAP Habitat.
There are extensive areas of BAP habitat within the site which will be lost, including neutral and semi-improved grassland, marshy grassland, scrub, hedgerow, ditch and floodplain grazing marsh. All these habitats have targets for their conservation and protection. Restoration of the site would not effectively replace these existing ecologically high value habitats which have taken centuries to evolve. In particular, floodplain grazing marsh is a high priority habitat and the site is unusual in the extent to which the floodplain grasslands have been retained as hundreds of acres of this habitat have been lost over the last sixty years. Furthermore, it is proposed that the existing semi- natural habitat of grassland and scrub at Mill Hill will be restored to agriculture rather than for biodiversity. A less environmentally damaging site, whereby restoration will maximise BAP priority habitats and result in a net gain for biodiversity, should therefore be allocated in preference to this one.
7. Restoration Plan
The restoration plan incorporates two extensive voids of open water, and as the areas of reed bed, marsh and wet grassland are much smaller in comparison they would not replace the existing BAP habitats in either scale or quality. Importantly, approximately half the valley floor will be covered in open water contained within the two large voids. Furthermore, these large expanses of open water are not planned to be 'wildlife friendly' due to the safeguarding limitations for East Midlands Airport.
It is also proposed to retain the access track over Brandshill Grassland (LWS) and to plant trees on soil bunds, meaning a substantial part of this exceptionally species rich grassland will be permanently lost, and furthermore, the current semi-natural habitat of scrub and grassland at Mill Hill will be restored to arable land.
Therefore, the restoration plan for this site would not maximise BAP priority habitats for the area, and overall there is no significant biodiversity compensation achieved as a result of the proposed restoration measures.

8. Summary
Two SSSIs are within close proximity to the site, and both will be adversely affected during the operational period and in the long term. Attenborough Nature Reserve's important bird species will be adversely impacted by noise and permanent loss of feeding areas, and Holme Pit's water quality issues will be exacerbated during periods of flooding and as a result the issues will remain in the long term.
Two ancient woodlands will be subject to direct and indirect adverse impacts which will cause long term deterioration.
Six LWSs lie within or directly adjacent to the site boundary, one of which will be completely destroyed, two partially lost and three subject to direct impacts which will have negative long term effects.
Numerous protected and priority species will be subject to adverse impacts, including the endangered species, Carabus monilis.
Given the number of Local Wildlife Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Ancient Woodlands, protected, endangered and notable species, and the extent of high quality BAP habitat which will be lost or directly impacted upon, coupled with the uncertainty regarding the successful outcome of restoration of such habitats, it is clear that the extraction of sand and gravel at this site will have a very negative impact on the Sustainability Objective:-
'Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest'
Therefore the score for the operational period should be reassessed as -3.
As stated above, the restoration proposals for the site include relatively little BAP habitat as over 50% of the valley floor will be covered in open water designed to be unattractive to wildlife. Furthermore, the existing semi natural habitat of scrub and grassland at Mill Hill will be restored to agriculture, and the planted bunds and access track will be retained on Brandshill Grassland. Therefore the restoration scheme would not compensate for the extensive areas of existing high quality BAP habitat lost during operations, and that which was restored or created would bear no comparison to the existing high quality habitat. This, coupled with the long term effects on priority habitats and species listed above, means the proposal is likely to have a negative impact on 'enhancing biodiversity at all levels' and therefore the score for the long-term impacts should be reassessed as -2.
A site which maximises the restoration or creation of BAP priority habitats and results in a positive long term score should be allocated in preference to this one.

B. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
1. Setting of Registered Heritage Assets
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.
Mr Morden welcomed the assessment and in his response assessed the level of harm during the operational period as 'substantial' and stated that, 'it will be a permanent impact and for this reason it may be considerably harmful over the long term as the present appreciation among the local populace of the inter-relationship of the heritage assets is eroded over time.'
Historic England described the assessment as a 'sound piece of work that demonstrates a positive historic landscape relationship,' and that the impact of quarrying can be 'regarded as harmful to the significance of the above designated assets through loss to the character of their historic landscape context,' and that, 'Historic England has concerns about the application on heritage grounds.'
Under the Historic Environment section in the Site Appraisal Matrix, it is stated that:-
'In the long term the impact on the settings of heritage assets could be positive or negative depending on the details of restoration.'
However, the commentary in respect of biodiversity in the same document states:-
'The restoration scheme includes the creation of 62ha of several key UK and Nottinghamshire LBAP priority habitats but this would still involve an overall reduction in BAP habitat and the loss and degradation of a number of LWSs and features used by protected species.'
In order to make this assessment, the author clearly had sight of a restoration plan and it seems unlikely that this is a substantially different plan to the one submitted as part of the planning application. Therefore, why has the historic environment officer who assessed the score for the long term as l, (i.e. the proposal could have a positive or negative impact depending on how it is implemented), not had sight of the same restoration plans as the ecology officer? This demonstrates a serious lack of consistency in the approach to assessing the sustainability of the site.
The restoration plan for the application site clearly shows the majority of the valley floor covered in open water and reed beds thus permanently changing the character of the historic pastoral setting of Clifton Hall. In her Regulation 25 response, Nancy Ashbridge described the impact of the long term effects of restoration to this type of habitat as follows:-
'The area also provides the setting for Clifton Hall and the Registered Park and Garden - the permanent change in the character from the original pastoral setting to an area of open water and wetland habitats, together with the already altered landscape within the nature reserve to the west, would detract from the setting of the Hall and Registered Park and Garden.'
And,
'Together with the permanently altered landscape character of the former sand and gravel workings to the west of the River Trent (Attenborough Nature Reserve) and the loss of this historic landscape with links to Clifton Hall, this would be a major adverse cumulative impact on the physical landscape/landscape character of the area, both during the operational phase and following restoration.'
Clearly, the council's heritage and landscape officers, together with Historic England, recognise the importance of the historic environment of the site to the setting of the registered heritage assets and have serious concerns about the long term impact of restoration on the setting and significance of Clifton Hall. The officer responsible for assessing the long term impacts of restoration for the Site Appraisal Matrix should have had sight of the same restoration plan as the biodiversity officer to enable an assessment. Furthermore, taking the above comments as an indication of the likely effect on the SA Objective, 'Protect the quality of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings above and below ground', then this should at the very least be assessed as 'negative', as restoration of the site will clearly have an adverse impact on the setting and significance of Clifton Hall. Therefore the long term SA score should be assessed as -2 accordingly.

C. LANDSCAPE
1. Cumulative Impacts on Landscape Character
There will be unacceptable cumulative impacts on the environment/ landscape character with the allocation of the Mill Hill site together with the planned urban extension to the south east of the site on Clifton Pasture and the former sand and gravel workings at Attenborough.
In respect of cumulative impacts on landscape character the site has been assessed by Nancy Ashbridge, (Landscape Architect, Environmental Management and Design), as follows:-
'Together with the permanently altered landscape character of the former sand and gravel workings to the west of the River Trent (Attenborough Nature Reserve) and the loss of the historic landscape with links to Clifton Hall, this would be a major adverse cumulative impact on the physical landscape/landscape character of the area, both during the operational phase and following restoration.'
Therefore the inclusion of the Mill Hill site in the draft MLP in respect of past mineral development and other proposed non-mineral development is contradictory to policy DM8:-
'Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there are no unacceptable cumulative impacts on the environment or on the amenity of a local community, either in relation to the collective effect of different impacts of an individual proposal, or in relation to the effects of a number of developments occurring either concurrently or successively.'
Furthermore, the allocation of the site does not comply with the relevant policy in the current Minerals Local Plan:-
Policy M3.27 Cumulative Impact
'Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would result cumulatively in a significant adverse impact on the environment and/or the amenity of local communities.'


 
2. Greenbelt
The site of the processing plant on a very prominent ridgeline on Mill Hill will have an adverse impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in this area and conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and should therefore be considered inappropriate development. As there are no special circumstances of sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt in this area it is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies EN14 and EN19 of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan. Therefore the site should not be included in the Draft Minerals Local Plan.

D. AGRICUTURAL LAND AND SOIL
Some sites (for example Shelford and Barton in Fabis (West) ) have been marked as -2 during the operational period on the basis of an assumption that the majority of the site is Grade 3a and there would be a negative impact on best and most versatile agricultural land. Sites should not be assessed on the basis of assumptions and the scores should be reassessed as 'uncertain or insufficient information on which to determine impact', and marked as '?' during both the operational period and in the long term.
The Site Appraisal Matrix for the Mill Hill site states that:-
'12% of the site is Grade 2 and 3a which is best and most versatile agricultural land which the proposer states will be restored to the same quality.'
This information is incorrect as the submission details sent in by Greenfield Associates clearly states,
'7.13 The assessment of the Mill Hill area (19.50ha) identifies that only 6.15 ha of Grade 3a and Grade 2 BMV land to be present.'
And,
'7.1.4 Over the whole application area (88ha), only 12% is identified as BMV, of which only 5% will be lost (4.54 ha) within the proposed extraction area.'
Twelve per cent of the site is BMV land (10.69 ha), of which 4.54ha in the flood plain (nearly half) will be lost in the long term. Furthermore, in his response to the current planning application for the site, the County Council ecologist has stated that it is not appropriate to restore the land at Mill Hill to agriculture, (the remaining 6.15 ha), as it is currently a semi natural habitat of grassland and scrub. In light of this, the commentary against the SA objective, protect high quality agricultural land and soil, should be amended to reflect the facts and the long term score should be reassessed from +1 to -1.

E. HUMAN HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE
Bridleway 3 is an extremely well used and strategic route between Barton and Thrumpton in the county and Clifton and Wilford in the city. As the site access road and gravel conveyor will have to be crossed by horse riders at the base of Brandshill Grassland this has very serious health and safety implications which are contrary to the SA objective - 'Protect and improve human health and quality of life.' Furthermore, because of the important health and safety implications for horse riders this should be flagged up in the commentary on the Site Appraisal Matrix.

F. MLP DRAFT SITE METHODOLOGY
1. Table 4 Sustainability Assessment Scores and Key Comments
a) Biodiversity
In reference to impacts on biodiversity, Table 4 states:
'There is a negative impact on biodiversity during the operational period with the impact in the long-term remaining slightly negative.'
For the reasons stated in Section A of this response, the impact during the operational phase should be reassessed as very negative (-3) with the impact in the long-term reassessed as negative (-2).
b) Historic Environment
In reference to the historic environment, Table 4 states:-
'There is a negative impact on the historic environment during the operational period.'
As shown in Section B of this response, there will be a long term negative impact on the historic environment post restoration in respect of the setting and significance of Clifton Hall and this should be included in the key comments with the long term score reassessed as -2.
c) Landscape
In reference to impacts on landscape, Table 4 states:-
'The landscape assessment concluded that there would be a very negative impact both during the operational period and in the long-term, but also identified some scope for mitigation measures.'
The mitigation measures in the SAM include advance planting during the operational phase to screen development from residents on the edge of Barton in Fabis and in riverside properties. For this to be effective, advance planting would need to take place at least 15 years before the start of operations. Furthermore, this would not compensate for loss of the views of the natural river meadows which the residents currently enjoy.
It is also recommended that, 'buffer zones along the River Trent should be used for riparian planting and to reduce the impact from residential properties;'. However, as there are no residential properties on the west bank of the river, such a measure would only serve to filter the views of the site from visitors to Attenborough Nature Reserve, who would still be impacted by noise and have clear views of the access road and conveyor on the higher ground of Brandshill Grassland.
A further recommendation is the 'retention of ridge and furrow areas for grazing'. Such areas are not planned to be retained, and if retained their size would not be considered practicable for grazing.
To summarise, the suggested mitigation measures do not diminish the post restoration impacts on the current pastoral landscape character and should not be used to justify the following statement in the Summary of Key Issues on page 55 of the Draft Site Methodology:-
'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, these become slightly negative impacts in the long term.'
Neither the SAM nor Table 4 refer to landscape impacts becoming slightly negative in the long term, and the SAM still scores the long term effect as -3, stating that:-
'The landscape assessment for post-restoration resulted in a combined landscape score of 96/100 so the impact is considered to remain very negative.'
Therefore the statement on page 55 of the Draft Site Methodology should be reworded to reflect this.
d) Agricultural Land
In reference to high quality agricultural land, Table 4 states:-
'The loss of some high quality agricultural land would have a slightly negative impact during the operational period but restoration would include reinstatement of this.'
As stated in Section D above, the 4.5 ha of BMV land in the floodplain will be permanently lost, and the County Council's ecologist has stated it is not appropriate to restore the remaining 6.15 ha of BMV land on Mill Hill to agriculture. Therefore none of the BMV land will be reinstated and the commentary in Table 4 should be amended to reflect this and the long term score reassessed from +1 to -1 as there will be a slightly negative impact in the long term.

2. Comments on Summary of Key Issues and Sustainability Appraisal Scores
The Summary of Key Issues included in the Draft Site Methodology states:-
'In assessment against sustainability appraisal objectives, the site scores very negatively during the operational phase and slightly negatively in the long term.'
This is another inaccurate and misleading statement. As stated above, the long term score for landscape impacts is -3, very negative, despite proposed mitigation.
Furthermore, this response has shown that there will be a negative long term impact in respect of restoration to maximise BAP habitat and also to the historic environment with regard to the setting and significance of Clifton Hall. As a result, the long term impacts for both biodiversity and the historic environment should be regarded as negative as opposed to slightly negative, with each marked as -2. In respect of the protection of high quality agricultural land, the long term score should be reassessed as -1 for the reasons stated in Section D. THEREFORE THE TOTAL LONG TERM EFFECTS AGAINST THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL OBJECTIVES SHOULD BE REASSESSED AND SCORED AS -8, MEANING THE SITE SCORES VERY NEGATIVELY IN THE LONG TERM.

G. GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD
The Summary of Key Issues from the Draft Site Methodology (page 55) states:-
'The site is one of several sites in the Nottingham area although in light of the need to maintain a geographical spread of sites across the County a limited number of sites will be necessary to contribute to future supply in the Nottingham area.'
It would appear that the inclusion of geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries as a key strategic objective of the draft MLP, (DSM page 44), is being used to justify including this site in the plan, despite the Council rating it as the third worst of all the potential sites in terms of operational and long term negative effects. ARGUMENTS ABOUT GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD SHOULD NOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY ALLOCATING THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING SITES.
The Mill Hill site was rejected during the previous draft MLP process because it was considered too environmentally damaging in respect of biodiversity, the historic environment and landscape character and nothing has changed in respect of these important sustainability issues to justify its inclusion in this plan. What has changed is a new emphasis on geographical spread and this is now being used as the determining factor to override the Sustainability Assessment. It also appears that this approach is contrary to the majority of responses to the Issues and Options consultation as stated under MP2: Sand and Gravel (page 59):-
'Generally, respondents felt that prioritising geographic areas above others would not be appropriate, instead, each site should be judged on its own merits.'
Although the Minerals Planning Authority judged each site on its own merits they have chosen to ignore the results. Furthermore, there is no evidence provided to justify the MPA's interpretation of a correct geographical spread in respect of supply and demand for each market sub area.
In respect of:
Question 1 - 'What do you think of the draft vision and sustainability objectives set out in this plan?'; and specifically,
SO1:'Improving the sustainability of minerals development.'
My comments are- Geographical spread should not be a key strategic objective of the new MLP as it is being used to provide justification to override the sustainability assessment by allowing the most environmentally damaging sites to be included in the draft MLP.

H. THE SHELFORD SITE
Although the Shelford site was included in the last draft MLP it has been excluded from this plan despite the fact that the overall long term score is only -1/slightly negative and there is
'an important opportunity to secure natural flood risk management and biodiversity outcomes through the re-connection of the Trent to its floodplain, channel braiding and the creation of wet grassland floodplain/grazing marsh.'
And:-
'The proposer states that the restoration scheme will seek to balance a high level of ecological restoration with providing access to the local community through footpath access alongside the river in an area where there is currently no public access. The scheme has the potential to deliver significant biodiversity benefits.'
And:-
'In the long term improvements to the Trent Valley Way long-distance footpath are proposed. The suggested provision of an improved flood defence scheme for Shelford could have a beneficial effect in the long-term.'
And:-
'It is proposed that just over one third of annual tonnage extracted (180,000 tonnes) will be transported by barge.'
And:-
'The site has the potential to produce a very large quantity of sand and gravel which is important in supporting the wider economy particularly through meeting the demands of the construction industry.'
It is noted that the Shelford site scored positively under the following key sustainability objectives:-
Ensure adequate provision is made to meet local and national demand: +3 during the operational period.
Protect and enhance biodiversity at all levels and safeguard features of geological interest: +2 in the long term.
Promote sustainable patterns of movement and the use of more sustainable modes of transport: +2 during the operational period.
Protect and improve human health and quality of life: +2 in the long term.
However, despite these positive scores, the site has not been included in the draft MLP on the basis that it is too big and,
'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.'
This is clearly another example of how geographical spread has been used to override the Sustainability Appraisal, but this time it has been used to justify the exclusion of a site which scores far more positively than the one at Mill Hill, particularly in respect of sustainable modes of transport. Also, the Minerals Planning Authority have not provided any clear justification for a geographical spread in preference to each site being judged on its merits other than it will 'enable the continued supply of sand and gravel to the different market areas to minimise the wider impacts of HGV transport.' This alone cannot be considered reason enough to ignore all the other sustainability objectives. Importantly, this statement is contradicted in the Interim Sustainability Assessment (July 2018):-
6.14' It was considered that attempting to score sites on the basis of transport distances for the minerals would be misleading as there is too great a degree of uncertainty involved, given that the mineral could be transported from any site to any market within an economic distance and that the locations of markets for any specific site are likely to change during the Plan period.'
Furthermore, the Minerals Planning Authority has not produced any projections for sand and gravel demand in the different sub market areas within the County in the Local Aggregates Assessment. Unless they can come up with credible figures for demand over the next 20 years in the Nottingham market area, then the comment that Shelford is too big to serve that market area cannot be justified.

In summary, there is no justification for the inclusion of the Mill Hill site, MP2s, in the draft MLP and it should be removed from the plan.

I would like to register a protest to the planning application re MP2s (Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis) Sand and gravel provision. This props all I fear would cause irreparable damage to the wildlife in a site of special scientific interest SSSI. One of the top 10 in the world (The reserve was ninth in the list of top spots compiled by environment writer Richard Hammond, published in the BBC Wildlife magazine. It ranks along side renowned wildlife venues in Kenya, Borneo and Namibia) and there are plans to not only alter the ecology of the area but to deter other wildlife to come to the area for nearly 25 years!

I have used the reserve for over 20 years and would be ashamed of Nottingham council if they decided to accept this proposal that would desecrate the area.

The historical area has not been fully explored and if any ancient sites are found after the permission has been granted there will be no more heard about it as that would affect their profits.

Peace and quiet would be a scarce thing as working machinery would be constantly causing a noise nuisance, and therefore would not be the jewel in Nottingham's crown for wildlife and prestige.

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

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

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

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
The site is close to heavily populated areas which would be impacted by noise and dust
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir/ Madam,

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

The noise pollution that the lorries using the site would produce. The A453 already carries a significant volume of traffic and the development of this site would exacerbate the traffic problem in the area.
Fumes and toxic gases generated by the lorry movements will impinge on our health and well being. I believe that my personal breathing problems would be adversely affected by all the extra traffic generated,especially when the A453 comes to a standstill.

Since the area is under increasing pressure to reduce pollution it cannot be a wise move to increase vehicle movements, by polluting vehicles when there is an alternative site where river traffic could be used. The council cannot implore us to reduce car usage- as an end to pollution control- and at the same time introduce a development which will rely heavily on polluting lorries. This suggests to me that the council may be speaking with a forked tongue on this issue. When one looks at the overall issues surrounding this application:
noise, dust, fumes- affecting the health of those of us unfortunately living at Lark Hill-
Dmage to historical site and surrounding landscape
Loss of agricultural land
Loss of leisure area
and a number of peripheral problems then it is inconceivable that the county council wil even consider this.

It must be, once and for all, rejected in the strongest possible way

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

Proposed sand and gravel quarry site MP2s
I writing to confirm that I wish to object to the above site.
The County Councils own 'Sustainability Assessment' shows that this site is the most damaging of all sites in the operational phase and the 3rd most damaging in the long term.
The Draft Minerals Local Plan is 'unsound' in that the Council has sought to justify the inclusion of the site on the basis of 'maintaining a geographical spread' and therefore over riding the adverse impact of sustainability. However, the council has stated that 'there is no published data related to a geographical spread'.
There have been no projections for sand and gravel demand in the different submarket areas. The County Council's statement that the Shelford or Coddington sites are too big cannot be justified.
The Council has failed to follow its policy aim to 'Prioritise sites with potential for transporting sand and gravel by river barge' by not allocating any sites which use this mode of transport.
The site would impact on two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) - Attenborough Nature Reserve and Holme Pit - which are close to the site, and on five LWS's (Local Wildlife Sites) one of which will be destroyed altogether.
Public Health England, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, Ramblers Association and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have already objected to a planning application for this site.
The site is in the Green Belt, and Brandshill and Clifton Woods, Adjacent to the site, have been designated as Ancient Woodland which have special protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council has failed to justify any 'wholly exceptional reasons' required by the NPPF.
There would be a major impact on the quality of life and visual amenity of local people, as well as the loss of peace and tranquillity in an area used extensively by a wider community for walking, fishing, horse riding, bird watching and other leisure pursuits, including an adverse impact on grazing land and especially to the respiratory health of horses. The loss of a significant area of countryside on the edge of a large city such as Nottingham damages the recreational opportunities that are increasingly important for the health and well-being of city dwellers.
As a family with 4 children who utilise this space, it would be a great loss.

Sand and gravel provision site MP2s Mill Hill

Dear sir,
As a resident of Lark Hill Village I wish to object to the above site proposal.

The application completely ignores the fact that noise and pollution problems emanating from this site will make life for us intolerable. And this is before we consider the impact on the surrounding environment and amenities of the area. This site is, I believe within the greenbelt thus it should have protection against development and industrial usage and it is the council responsibility to ensure that it remains.

The council must reject this proposal and state that more suitable sites are available which would not impact on the surrounding areas in an adverse way.

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

Both of use would be adversely affected by noise and dust. We both have serious health conditions.