Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Search representations

Results for Gedling Borough Council search

New search New search

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q1 Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

Representation ID: 30284

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

No comments.

Full text:

No comments.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q2 Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

Representation ID: 30285

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

The vision is supported.

Full text:

The vision is supported.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

Representation ID: 30286

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

Yes the strategic issues are appropriate.

Full text:

Yes the strategic issues are appropriate.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q4 Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives

Representation ID: 30287

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

Yes this approach accords with National Planning policy.

Full text:

Yes this approach accords with National Planning policy.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q5 Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

Representation ID: 30288

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

Yes agreed.

Full text:

Yes agreed.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries

Representation ID: 30289

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

In general yes.

Full text:

In general yes.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q7 Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?

Representation ID: 30290

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

This is unlikely to be necessary as the various impacts from different types of mineral extraction are similar.

Full text:

This is unlikely to be necessary as the various impacts from different types of mineral extraction are similar.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q8 How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the County to minimise transport distances

Representation ID: 30291

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

No comments.

Full text:

No comments.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

Representation ID: 30292

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

No comments.

Full text:

No comments.

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q10 Is it economical to transport mineral by river barge and if so should proposed quarries with the potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge be prioritised over other proposals?

Representation ID: 30293

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Gedling Borough Council

Representation Summary:

No comments.

Full text:

No comments.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.