Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

MMO Marine Planning response to The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues & Options consultation

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan. The comments provided within this letter refer to the document entitled The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues & Options Consultation.

As the marine planning authority for England, the MMO is responsible for preparing marine plans for English inshore and offshore waters. At its landward extent the Marine Plan boundaries extend up to the level of the mean high water spring tides mark (which includes the tidal extent of any rivers), there will be an overlap with terrestrial plans which generally extend to the mean low water springs mark.

Marine plans will inform and guide decision makers on development in marine and coastal area. Planning documents for areas with a coastal influence may wish to make reference to the MMO's licensing requirements and any relevant marine plans to ensure the necessary considerations are included. For marine and coastal areas where a Marine Plan is not currently in place, we advise local authorities to refer to the Marine Policy Statement for guidance on any planning activity that includes a section of coastline or tidal river.

All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions that affect or might affect the UK marine area must do so in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and any relevant adopted Marine Plan or the UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. Local authorities may also wish to refer to our online guidance and the Planning Advisory Service soundness self-assessment checklist.
I am led to believe that the River Trent, which as stated on page 8 (of the document highlighted above) is situated towards the east of the plan area, has a tidal extent up to Cromwell Lock. I would recommend the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans are a relevant consideration in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (East Marine Plan, chapter 1 section 19). Additionally the use of transportation by river barge, as referred to on page 20 (of the document highlighted above), should be considered and the applicable policies could be referenced from the marine plan.
Policy Recommendations
Please see below suggested policies from the East Marine Plan to be considered when developing your policy. These suggested policies included below have been identified based on the activities and categories within the document entitled above. They are provided only as recommendation and we would suggest your own interpretation of the East marine plan is completed:

*CC1: Proposals should demonstrate that they have taken account of how they may:
o Be impacted upon by, and respond to, climate change over their lifetime
o Impact upon any climate change adaptation measures elsewhere during their lifetime
Where detrimental impacts on climate change adaptation measures are identified, evidence should be provided as to how the proposal will reduce such impacts.
*CC2: Proposals for development should minimise emissions of greenhouse gases as far as is appropriate. Mitigation measures will also be encouraged where emissions remain following minimising steps. Consideration should also be given to emissions from other activities or users affected by the proposal.
*EC1: Proposals that provide economic productivity benefits which are additional to Gross Value Added (GVA) currently generated by existing activities should be supported.
*EC2: Proposals that provide additional employment benefits should be supported, particularly where these benefits have the potential to meet employment needs in localities close to the marine plan areas.
*BIO1: Appropriate weight should be attached to biodiversity, reflecting the need to protect biodiversity as a whole, taking account of the best available evidence including habitats and species that are protected or conservation concern in the East Marine Plan and adjacent areas (marine, terrestrial).
*BIO2: Where appropriate, proposals for development should incorporate features that enhance biodiversity and geological interests.
*ECO1: Cumulative impacts affecting the ecosystem of the East Marine Plans and adjacent areas (marine, terrestrial) should be addressed in decision-making and plan implementation.
*ECO2: The risk of release of hazardous substances as a secondary effect due to any increased collision risk should be taken account of in proposals that require an authorisation.
*FISH2: Proposals should demonstrate, in order of preference:
a. that they will not have an adverse impact upon spawning and nursery areas and any associated habitat
b. how, if there are adverse impacts upon the spawning and nursery areas and any associated habitat, they will minimise them
c. how, if the adverse impacts cannot be minimised they will be mitigated
d. the case for proceeding with their proposals if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the adverse impacts.
* GOV1: Appropriate provision should be made for infrastructure on land which supports activities in the marine area and vice versa.
* GOV2: Opportunities for co-existence should be maximised wherever possible.
* GOV3: Proposals should demonstrate in order of preference:
a. that they will avoid displacement of other existing or authorised (but yet to be implemented) activities
b. how, if there are impacts resulting in displacement by the proposal activity, they will minimise them
c. how, if the impacts resulting in displacement by the proposal activity, cannot be minimised, they will be mitigated against
d. the case for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the impacts of displacement.
* SOC2: Proposals that may affect heritage assets should demonstrate, in order of preference:
a. that they will not compromise or harm elements which contribute to the significance of the heritage asset
b. how, if there is compromise or harm to a heritage asset, this will be minimised
c. how, where compromise or harm to a heritage asset cannot be minimised it will be mitigated against
d. the public benefits for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate harm to the heritage asset.
* SOC3: Proposals that may affect the terrestrial and marine character of an area should demonstrate, in order of preference:
a. that they will not adversely impact the terrestrial and marine character of an area
b. how, if there are adverse impacts on the terrestrial and marine character of an area, they will minimise them
c. how, where these adverse impacts on the terrestrial and marine character of an area cannot be minimised they will be mitigated against
d. the case for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the adverse impacts.
* TR1: Proposals for development should demonstrate in order of preference, that during construction and operation:
a. they will not adversely impact tourism and recreation activities
b. how, if there are adverse impacts on tourism and recreation activities, they will minimise them
c. how, if the adverse impacts cannot be minimised, they will be mitigated
d. the case for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the adverse impacts.
As previously stated, we would also recommend you consult the following references for further information:
East inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans and Marine Information System

MMO Marine Planning response to The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues & Options consultation

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan. The comments provided within this letter refer to the document entitled The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Issues & Options Consultation.

As the marine planning authority for England, the MMO is responsible for preparing marine plans for English inshore and offshore waters. At its landward extent the Marine Plan boundaries extend up to the level of the mean high water spring tides mark (which includes the tidal extent of any rivers), there will be an overlap with terrestrial plans which generally extend to the mean low water springs mark.

Marine plans will inform and guide decision makers on development in marine and coastal area. Planning documents for areas with a coastal influence may wish to make reference to the MMO's licensing requirements and any relevant marine plans to ensure the necessary considerations are included. For marine and coastal areas where a Marine Plan is not currently in place, we advise local authorities to refer to the Marine Policy Statement for guidance on any planning activity that includes a section of coastline or tidal river.

All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions that affect or might affect the UK marine area must do so in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and any relevant adopted Marine Plan or the UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. Local authorities may also wish to refer to our online guidance and the Planning Advisory Service soundness self-assessment checklist.
I am led to believe that the River Trent, which as stated on page 8 (of the document highlighted above) is situated towards the east of the plan area, has a tidal extent up to Cromwell Lock. I would recommend the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans are a relevant consideration in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (East Marine Plan, chapter 1 section 19). Additionally the use of transportation by river barge, as referred to on page 20 (of the document highlighted above), should be considered and the applicable policies could be referenced from the marine plan.
Policy Recommendations
Please see below suggested policies from the East Marine Plan to be considered when developing your policy. These suggested policies included below have been identified based on the activities and categories within the document entitled above. They are provided only as recommendation and we would suggest your own interpretation of the East marine plan is completed:

*CC1: Proposals should demonstrate that they have taken account of how they may:
o Be impacted upon by, and respond to, climate change over their lifetime
o Impact upon any climate change adaptation measures elsewhere during their lifetime
Where detrimental impacts on climate change adaptation measures are identified, evidence should be provided as to how the proposal will reduce such impacts.
*CC2: Proposals for development should minimise emissions of greenhouse gases as far as is appropriate. Mitigation measures will also be encouraged where emissions remain following minimising steps. Consideration should also be given to emissions from other activities or users affected by the proposal.
*EC1: Proposals that provide economic productivity benefits which are additional to Gross Value Added (GVA) currently generated by existing activities should be supported.
*EC2: Proposals that provide additional employment benefits should be supported, particularly where these benefits have the potential to meet employment needs in localities close to the marine plan areas.
*BIO1: Appropriate weight should be attached to biodiversity, reflecting the need to protect biodiversity as a whole, taking account of the best available evidence including habitats and species that are protected or conservation concern in the East Marine Plan and adjacent areas (marine, terrestrial).
*BIO2: Where appropriate, proposals for development should incorporate features that enhance biodiversity and geological interests.
*ECO1: Cumulative impacts affecting the ecosystem of the East Marine Plans and adjacent areas (marine, terrestrial) should be addressed in decision-making and plan implementation.
*ECO2: The risk of release of hazardous substances as a secondary effect due to any increased collision risk should be taken account of in proposals that require an authorisation.
*FISH2: Proposals should demonstrate, in order of preference:
a. that they will not have an adverse impact upon spawning and nursery areas and any associated habitat
b. how, if there are adverse impacts upon the spawning and nursery areas and any associated habitat, they will minimise them
c. how, if the adverse impacts cannot be minimised they will be mitigated
d. the case for proceeding with their proposals if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the adverse impacts.
* GOV1: Appropriate provision should be made for infrastructure on land which supports activities in the marine area and vice versa.
* GOV2: Opportunities for co-existence should be maximised wherever possible.
* GOV3: Proposals should demonstrate in order of preference:
a. that they will avoid displacement of other existing or authorised (but yet to be implemented) activities
b. how, if there are impacts resulting in displacement by the proposal activity, they will minimise them
c. how, if the impacts resulting in displacement by the proposal activity, cannot be minimised, they will be mitigated against
d. the case for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the impacts of displacement.
* SOC2: Proposals that may affect heritage assets should demonstrate, in order of preference:
a. that they will not compromise or harm elements which contribute to the significance of the heritage asset
b. how, if there is compromise or harm to a heritage asset, this will be minimised
c. how, where compromise or harm to a heritage asset cannot be minimised it will be mitigated against
d. the public benefits for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate harm to the heritage asset.
* SOC3: Proposals that may affect the terrestrial and marine character of an area should demonstrate, in order of preference:
a. that they will not adversely impact the terrestrial and marine character of an area
b. how, if there are adverse impacts on the terrestrial and marine character of an area, they will minimise them
c. how, where these adverse impacts on the terrestrial and marine character of an area cannot be minimised they will be mitigated against
d. the case for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the adverse impacts.
* TR1: Proposals for development should demonstrate in order of preference, that during construction and operation:
a. they will not adversely impact tourism and recreation activities
b. how, if there are adverse impacts on tourism and recreation activities, they will minimise them
c. how, if the adverse impacts cannot be minimised, they will be mitigated
d. the case for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate the adverse impacts.
As previously stated, we would also recommend you consult the following references for further information:
East inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans and Marine Information System