Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Search representations

Results for RSPB search

New search New search

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: 30487

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

Agree with draft vision particularly p/4 and emphasis on biodiversity delivery which is an essential component in the fight to reverse the significant declines in biodiversity in Nottinghamshire.


We recommend that the draft vision should explicitly address climate change, including the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

In context of the location of mineral development, consideration should be given to locations that have the greatest potential to deliver strategic restoration benefits.


Attachments:

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

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

Representation ID: 30488

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

Strategic issues are appropriate, in particular SI4

Recommend that SI3 should be broadened to minimise all adverse impacts of development, including on environmental and heritage features such as biodiversity, landscape and archaeology and communities.

Whilst we agree that it is appropriate to use the word 'minimise' at this strategic level, when this strategic issue / objective is worked up in more detail, at a policy level, in future iterations of the Minerals Local Plan, it should promote the 'mitigation hierarchy' (as set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF))

Attachments:

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: 30489

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

Yes in principle.
If it is identified that an extension to an existing quarry may have adverse effects on key features, then consideration should be given to prioritising a new, greenfield quarry instead. It is also worth noting that the biodiversity-led restoration of new, greenfield sites has the potential to provide important 'stepping stones' for wildlife between existing areas of priority habitat, thereby helping to establish a more coherent ecological network.
Ideally, the allocation of extensions to existing quarries should provide an opportunity to review and, if appropriate, amend the overall restoration plan to ensure the best possible biodiversity-led restoration.

Attachments:

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: 30490

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

Minimising the distance that minerals are transported is an important consideration, not least because this will help to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, as well as reducing impacts such as noise and pollution.

Attachments:

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

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

Representation ID: 30491

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

Whilst we support the principle of maintaining a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries in order to minimise the distance minerals are transported to markets, as outlined in response to Q8, we believe that there may be circumstances in which it would be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others. In particular, as indicated in response to Q1, consideration should be given to locating mineral development where it has the greatest potential to deliver strategic restoration benefits. The relative merits of minimising transportation distances and delivering strategic restoration benefits should be assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal.

Attachments:

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: 30492

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

Although we are not in a position to comment on the economics of transporting mineral by river barge, we support this approach, in principle, on the basis that it should help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimise other adverse impacts such as noise and pollution. However, consideration should be given to the potential adverse effects of this approach. For example, the installation of barge infrastructure during the operational phase of a mineral development could potentially limit longer-term, post-restoration objectives, such as flood alleviation and re-connecting the river with its floodplain.

Attachments:

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q24 Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

Representation ID: 30493

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

Yes. Among other issues, hydrocarbon extraction poses risks for climate change, water quality and supplies, and nature. The impacts of fracking on the UK environment are poorly understood given the novelty of the industry here, but potentially significant, and yet the Government is determined to put its weight and support behind it. e are concerned that developing unconventional gas resources including shale gas is incompatible with the UK's legal commitments on climate change.

We recognise the limited power that Nottinghamshire County Council has to resist further hydrocarbon developments However, a criteria-based policy governing proposals for new hydrocarbon development is required

Comment

Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

Q25 Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

Representation ID: 30494

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: RSPB

Representation Summary:

es, we agree with the proposed development management policy areas, in particular:
* Protecting local amenity
* Water resources and flood risk
* Agricultural land and soil quality
* Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity
* Landscape character
* Public access
* Cumulative impact
* Airfield safeguarding
* Planning obligations
* Restoration, afteruse and aftercare

With regards to agricultural land and soil quality, the main focus should be on conserving soil quality rather than maintaining the agricultural use of the land, per se.


In response to the second part of Q25 we believe that mitigating and adapting to climate change should be explicitly as a development management policy area, for the reasons outlined in response to Q2.

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