Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
Draft policy SP4 (Climate Change) requires all minerals development to minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.
The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which requires plans to take a proactive approach to "mitigating and adapting to climate change" (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF and the Climate Change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to replace "minimise" with "mitigate and adapt".
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Policy SP5 (Sustainable Transport) requires all mineral proposals to seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. The policy goes on to state that where there is no viable alternative to road transport, new mineral working should be located (a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets and (b) within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes and minimise the impact of road transportation. The policy fails to take full account of hydrocarbon extraction and onshore oil in particular. The nature of the mineral and the likelihood that wellsites will often be located in rural locations away from the main highway network means that there will be usually no alternative to transporting the drilling and other equipment. The first part of the policy should be qualified by including the words "where appropriate". The second part of the policy should be amended to delete "it can be demonstrated that" since hydrocarbon production by its very nature requires road transport which does not need to be demonstrated. The policy also needs to recognise that the source of hydrocarbon production may not be close to a proposed market (such as a refinery).
Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
The policy does not appear to take account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to "non-mineral development" in parts 1, 3 and 4 but "development" in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth of occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight mineral resources referred to at paragraph 3.82 of the draft Plan. Proposals for hydrocarbon development in safeguarding areas and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and the supporting text needs to be amended accordingly.
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
Policy MP12 (Hydrocarbon Minerals) sets out the Council's policy with regard to the exploration, appraisal, extraction and restoration of sites for hydrocarbon development. The supporting text notes that two main forms of hydrocarbons have been worked in Nottinghamshire - oil and mine gas. In addition, paragraph 4.99 of the draft Plan acknowledges that unconventional hydrocarbons such as coal bed methane and shale gas extraction are being developed in the county and could be worked over the plan period which runs until 2036.
In general terms, the policy is broadly acceptable. However, there are a number of concerns which require amendment to make the policy sound.
1. The policy needs to reflect the changes in the NPPF which came into effect on 24 July 2018. It is welcomed that the policy generally supports the exploration, appraisal and extraction of all hydrocarbons, including unconventional. Paragraph 4.104 acknowledges that the UK has a significant but largely untested potential shale gas resource and that in Nottinghamshire, potential shale gas resources are considered to lie in the far south and north of Nottinghamshire. However, there is no clear recognition in the draft Plan of the economic benefits associated with on-shore oil and gas. Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
2. Part 2 of the draft policy states that proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of the resource. Similarly, part 3 of the draft policy states that proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the "overall scheme". The draft plan is silent about the purpose and the scope of the scheme, who is responsible for preparing it (operators, minerals planning authority or a combination of the two) and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application. Moreover, the requirement for any proposal for appraisal or extraction to be consistent with "an overall scheme" is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG.
The wording of the draft policy implies that proposals for appraisal and extraction will only be permitted if they are consistent with an overall scheme which identifies the full extent of the resource. The ability of an operator to appraise or extract a hydrocarbon reserve will depend upon a number of factors. These include the geological structure of the rock, including its permeability, the technical complexity in drilling a borehole, the depth of the reserve; the market for the reserve; the terms of the agreement of any landowner from where the reserve will be drilled; and the geographical extent of the licence (Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence or other historical licence type) issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. Whilst an operator may wish to extract the full known extent of the reserve, therefore, in practice, other circumstances may affect the scope and timescale for appraising and developing the reserve.
The draft policy could be made sound by deleting references in parts 2 and 3 to "an overall scheme" which currently does not serve any clear purpose.
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3 (Agricultural land and soil quality?
The policy justification presumes that minerals development often involves the use of large areas of agricultural land. However, hydrocarbon exploration or production wellsites often extend for no more than 1 ha. Accordingly, there should be some recognition in the text that hydrocarbon proposals are unlikely to have an adverse impact on best and most versatile agricultural land by virtue of their size.

Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
Draft policy SP4 (Climate Change) requires all minerals development to minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.
The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which requires plans to take a proactive approach to "mitigating and adapting to climate change" (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF and the Climate Change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to replace "minimise" with "mitigate and adapt".
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Policy SP5 (Sustainable Transport) requires all mineral proposals to seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. The policy goes on to state that where there is no viable alternative to road transport, new mineral working should be located (a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets and (b) within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes and minimise the impact of road transportation. The policy fails to take full account of hydrocarbon extraction and onshore oil in particular. The nature of the mineral and the likelihood that wellsites will often be located in rural locations away from the main highway network means that there will be usually no alternative to transporting the drilling and other equipment. The first part of the policy should be qualified by including the words "where appropriate". The second part of the policy should be amended to delete "it can be demonstrated that" since hydrocarbon production by its very nature requires road transport which does not need to be demonstrated. The policy also needs to recognise that the source of hydrocarbon production may not be close to a proposed market (such as a refinery).
Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
The policy does not appear to take account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to "non-mineral development" in parts 1, 3 and 4 but "development" in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth of occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight mineral resources referred to at paragraph 3.82 of the draft Plan. Proposals for hydrocarbon development in safeguarding areas and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and the supporting text needs to be amended accordingly.
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
Policy MP12 (Hydrocarbon Minerals) sets out the Council's policy with regard to the exploration, appraisal, extraction and restoration of sites for hydrocarbon development. The supporting text notes that two main forms of hydrocarbons have been worked in Nottinghamshire - oil and mine gas. In addition, paragraph 4.99 of the draft Plan acknowledges that unconventional hydrocarbons such as coal bed methane and shale gas extraction are being developed in the county and could be worked over the plan period which runs until 2036.
In general terms, the policy is broadly acceptable. However, there are a number of concerns which require amendment to make the policy sound.
1. The policy needs to reflect the changes in the NPPF which came into effect on 24 July 2018. It is welcomed that the policy generally supports the exploration, appraisal and extraction of all hydrocarbons, including unconventional. Paragraph 4.104 acknowledges that the UK has a significant but largely untested potential shale gas resource and that in Nottinghamshire, potential shale gas resources are considered to lie in the far south and north of Nottinghamshire. However, there is no clear recognition in the draft Plan of the economic benefits associated with on-shore oil and gas. Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
2. Part 2 of the draft policy states that proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of the resource. Similarly, part 3 of the draft policy states that proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the "overall scheme". The draft plan is silent about the purpose and the scope of the scheme, who is responsible for preparing it (operators, minerals planning authority or a combination of the two) and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application. Moreover, the requirement for any proposal for appraisal or extraction to be consistent with "an overall scheme" is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG.
The wording of the draft policy implies that proposals for appraisal and extraction will only be permitted if they are consistent with an overall scheme which identifies the full extent of the resource. The ability of an operator to appraise or extract a hydrocarbon reserve will depend upon a number of factors. These include the geological structure of the rock, including its permeability, the technical complexity in drilling a borehole, the depth of the reserve; the market for the reserve; the terms of the agreement of any landowner from where the reserve will be drilled; and the geographical extent of the licence (Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence or other historical licence type) issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. Whilst an operator may wish to extract the full known extent of the reserve, therefore, in practice, other circumstances may affect the scope and timescale for appraising and developing the reserve.
The draft policy could be made sound by deleting references in parts 2 and 3 to "an overall scheme" which currently does not serve any clear purpose.
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3 (Agricultural land and soil quality?
The policy justification presumes that minerals development often involves the use of large areas of agricultural land. However, hydrocarbon exploration or production wellsites often extend for no more than 1 ha. Accordingly, there should be some recognition in the text that hydrocarbon proposals are unlikely to have an adverse impact on best and most versatile agricultural land by virtue of their size.

Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
Draft policy SP4 (Climate Change) requires all minerals development to minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.
The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which requires plans to take a proactive approach to "mitigating and adapting to climate change" (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF and the Climate Change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to replace "minimise" with "mitigate and adapt".
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Policy SP5 (Sustainable Transport) requires all mineral proposals to seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. The policy goes on to state that where there is no viable alternative to road transport, new mineral working should be located (a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets and (b) within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes and minimise the impact of road transportation. The policy fails to take full account of hydrocarbon extraction and onshore oil in particular. The nature of the mineral and the likelihood that wellsites will often be located in rural locations away from the main highway network means that there will be usually no alternative to transporting the drilling and other equipment. The first part of the policy should be qualified by including the words "where appropriate". The second part of the policy should be amended to delete "it can be demonstrated that" since hydrocarbon production by its very nature requires road transport which does not need to be demonstrated. The policy also needs to recognise that the source of hydrocarbon production may not be close to a proposed market (such as a refinery).
Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
The policy does not appear to take account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to "non-mineral development" in parts 1, 3 and 4 but "development" in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth of occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight mineral resources referred to at paragraph 3.82 of the draft Plan. Proposals for hydrocarbon development in safeguarding areas and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and the supporting text needs to be amended accordingly.
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
Policy MP12 (Hydrocarbon Minerals) sets out the Council's policy with regard to the exploration, appraisal, extraction and restoration of sites for hydrocarbon development. The supporting text notes that two main forms of hydrocarbons have been worked in Nottinghamshire - oil and mine gas. In addition, paragraph 4.99 of the draft Plan acknowledges that unconventional hydrocarbons such as coal bed methane and shale gas extraction are being developed in the county and could be worked over the plan period which runs until 2036.
In general terms, the policy is broadly acceptable. However, there are a number of concerns which require amendment to make the policy sound.
1. The policy needs to reflect the changes in the NPPF which came into effect on 24 July 2018. It is welcomed that the policy generally supports the exploration, appraisal and extraction of all hydrocarbons, including unconventional. Paragraph 4.104 acknowledges that the UK has a significant but largely untested potential shale gas resource and that in Nottinghamshire, potential shale gas resources are considered to lie in the far south and north of Nottinghamshire. However, there is no clear recognition in the draft Plan of the economic benefits associated with on-shore oil and gas. Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
2. Part 2 of the draft policy states that proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of the resource. Similarly, part 3 of the draft policy states that proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the "overall scheme". The draft plan is silent about the purpose and the scope of the scheme, who is responsible for preparing it (operators, minerals planning authority or a combination of the two) and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application. Moreover, the requirement for any proposal for appraisal or extraction to be consistent with "an overall scheme" is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG.
The wording of the draft policy implies that proposals for appraisal and extraction will only be permitted if they are consistent with an overall scheme which identifies the full extent of the resource. The ability of an operator to appraise or extract a hydrocarbon reserve will depend upon a number of factors. These include the geological structure of the rock, including its permeability, the technical complexity in drilling a borehole, the depth of the reserve; the market for the reserve; the terms of the agreement of any landowner from where the reserve will be drilled; and the geographical extent of the licence (Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence or other historical licence type) issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. Whilst an operator may wish to extract the full known extent of the reserve, therefore, in practice, other circumstances may affect the scope and timescale for appraising and developing the reserve.
The draft policy could be made sound by deleting references in parts 2 and 3 to "an overall scheme" which currently does not serve any clear purpose.
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3 (Agricultural land and soil quality?
The policy justification presumes that minerals development often involves the use of large areas of agricultural land. However, hydrocarbon exploration or production wellsites often extend for no more than 1 ha. Accordingly, there should be some recognition in the text that hydrocarbon proposals are unlikely to have an adverse impact on best and most versatile agricultural land by virtue of their size.

Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
Draft policy SP4 (Climate Change) requires all minerals development to minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.
The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which requires plans to take a proactive approach to "mitigating and adapting to climate change" (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF and the Climate Change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to replace "minimise" with "mitigate and adapt".
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Policy SP5 (Sustainable Transport) requires all mineral proposals to seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. The policy goes on to state that where there is no viable alternative to road transport, new mineral working should be located (a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets and (b) within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes and minimise the impact of road transportation. The policy fails to take full account of hydrocarbon extraction and onshore oil in particular. The nature of the mineral and the likelihood that wellsites will often be located in rural locations away from the main highway network means that there will be usually no alternative to transporting the drilling and other equipment. The first part of the policy should be qualified by including the words "where appropriate". The second part of the policy should be amended to delete "it can be demonstrated that" since hydrocarbon production by its very nature requires road transport which does not need to be demonstrated. The policy also needs to recognise that the source of hydrocarbon production may not be close to a proposed market (such as a refinery).
Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
The policy does not appear to take account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to "non-mineral development" in parts 1, 3 and 4 but "development" in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth of occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight mineral resources referred to at paragraph 3.82 of the draft Plan. Proposals for hydrocarbon development in safeguarding areas and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and the supporting text needs to be amended accordingly.
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
Policy MP12 (Hydrocarbon Minerals) sets out the Council's policy with regard to the exploration, appraisal, extraction and restoration of sites for hydrocarbon development. The supporting text notes that two main forms of hydrocarbons have been worked in Nottinghamshire - oil and mine gas. In addition, paragraph 4.99 of the draft Plan acknowledges that unconventional hydrocarbons such as coal bed methane and shale gas extraction are being developed in the county and could be worked over the plan period which runs until 2036.
In general terms, the policy is broadly acceptable. However, there are a number of concerns which require amendment to make the policy sound.
1. The policy needs to reflect the changes in the NPPF which came into effect on 24 July 2018. It is welcomed that the policy generally supports the exploration, appraisal and extraction of all hydrocarbons, including unconventional. Paragraph 4.104 acknowledges that the UK has a significant but largely untested potential shale gas resource and that in Nottinghamshire, potential shale gas resources are considered to lie in the far south and north of Nottinghamshire. However, there is no clear recognition in the draft Plan of the economic benefits associated with on-shore oil and gas. Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
2. Part 2 of the draft policy states that proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of the resource. Similarly, part 3 of the draft policy states that proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the "overall scheme". The draft plan is silent about the purpose and the scope of the scheme, who is responsible for preparing it (operators, minerals planning authority or a combination of the two) and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application. Moreover, the requirement for any proposal for appraisal or extraction to be consistent with "an overall scheme" is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG.
The wording of the draft policy implies that proposals for appraisal and extraction will only be permitted if they are consistent with an overall scheme which identifies the full extent of the resource. The ability of an operator to appraise or extract a hydrocarbon reserve will depend upon a number of factors. These include the geological structure of the rock, including its permeability, the technical complexity in drilling a borehole, the depth of the reserve; the market for the reserve; the terms of the agreement of any landowner from where the reserve will be drilled; and the geographical extent of the licence (Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence or other historical licence type) issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. Whilst an operator may wish to extract the full known extent of the reserve, therefore, in practice, other circumstances may affect the scope and timescale for appraising and developing the reserve.
The draft policy could be made sound by deleting references in parts 2 and 3 to "an overall scheme" which currently does not serve any clear purpose.
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3 (Agricultural land and soil quality?
The policy justification presumes that minerals development often involves the use of large areas of agricultural land. However, hydrocarbon exploration or production wellsites often extend for no more than 1 ha. Accordingly, there should be some recognition in the text that hydrocarbon proposals are unlikely to have an adverse impact on best and most versatile agricultural land by virtue of their size.

Question 5 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for climate change?
Draft policy SP4 (Climate Change) requires all minerals development to minimise their impact on the causes of climate change for the lifetime of the development.
The wording of the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF which requires plans to take a proactive approach to "mitigating and adapting to climate change" (paragraphs 20 (d) and 149, for example). The requirement for proposals to minimise the impact on climate change throughout the lifetime of the development is unduly onerous and exceeds the guidance in the NPPF and the Climate Change PPG. Instead, the policy should be amended to replace "minimise" with "mitigate and adapt".
Question 6 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for sustainable transport?
Policy SP5 (Sustainable Transport) requires all mineral proposals to seek to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, including barge and rail. The policy goes on to state that where there is no viable alternative to road transport, new mineral working should be located (a) within close proximity to existing or proposed markets and (b) within close proximity to the County's main highway network and existing transport routes and minimise the impact of road transportation. The policy fails to take full account of hydrocarbon extraction and onshore oil in particular. The nature of the mineral and the likelihood that wellsites will often be located in rural locations away from the main highway network means that there will be usually no alternative to transporting the drilling and other equipment. The first part of the policy should be qualified by including the words "where appropriate". The second part of the policy should be amended to delete "it can be demonstrated that" since hydrocarbon production by its very nature requires road transport which does not need to be demonstrated. The policy also needs to recognise that the source of hydrocarbon production may not be close to a proposed market (such as a refinery).
Question 9 - What do you think of the draft strategic policy for Mineral Safeguarding, Consultation Areas and associated minerals infrastructure?
The policy does not appear to take account of circumstances where proposals may come forward for hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal or production in a safeguarding area. The policy as currently drafted is ambiguous in that it refers to "non-mineral development" in parts 1, 3 and 4 but "development" in part 2. Oil and gas (including conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons) are a mineral resource of local and national importance (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The depth of occurrence and nature of hydrocarbon reserves means that they can be explored and extracted without undue sterilisation of the eight mineral resources referred to at paragraph 3.82 of the draft Plan. Proposals for hydrocarbon development in safeguarding areas and consultation areas should be considered favourably by the MPA. The policy and the supporting text needs to be amended accordingly.
Question 21 - What do you think of the draft policy to meet demand for hydrocarbon minerals over the plan period?
Policy MP12 (Hydrocarbon Minerals) sets out the Council's policy with regard to the exploration, appraisal, extraction and restoration of sites for hydrocarbon development. The supporting text notes that two main forms of hydrocarbons have been worked in Nottinghamshire - oil and mine gas. In addition, paragraph 4.99 of the draft Plan acknowledges that unconventional hydrocarbons such as coal bed methane and shale gas extraction are being developed in the county and could be worked over the plan period which runs until 2036.
In general terms, the policy is broadly acceptable. However, there are a number of concerns which require amendment to make the policy sound.
1. The policy needs to reflect the changes in the NPPF which came into effect on 24 July 2018. It is welcomed that the policy generally supports the exploration, appraisal and extraction of all hydrocarbons, including unconventional. Paragraph 4.104 acknowledges that the UK has a significant but largely untested potential shale gas resource and that in Nottinghamshire, potential shale gas resources are considered to lie in the far south and north of Nottinghamshire. However, there is no clear recognition in the draft Plan of the economic benefits associated with on-shore oil and gas. Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
2. Part 2 of the draft policy states that proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for identifying the extent of the resource. Similarly, part 3 of the draft policy states that proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme enabling the full development of the resource. However, there is no explanation of what comprises the "overall scheme". The draft plan is silent about the purpose and the scope of the scheme, who is responsible for preparing it (operators, minerals planning authority or a combination of the two) and whether this is required to be submitted at the time of any planning application. Moreover, the requirement for any proposal for appraisal or extraction to be consistent with "an overall scheme" is not referred to in either the NPPF or the Minerals PPG.
The wording of the draft policy implies that proposals for appraisal and extraction will only be permitted if they are consistent with an overall scheme which identifies the full extent of the resource. The ability of an operator to appraise or extract a hydrocarbon reserve will depend upon a number of factors. These include the geological structure of the rock, including its permeability, the technical complexity in drilling a borehole, the depth of the reserve; the market for the reserve; the terms of the agreement of any landowner from where the reserve will be drilled; and the geographical extent of the licence (Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence or other historical licence type) issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. Whilst an operator may wish to extract the full known extent of the reserve, therefore, in practice, other circumstances may affect the scope and timescale for appraising and developing the reserve.
The draft policy could be made sound by deleting references in parts 2 and 3 to "an overall scheme" which currently does not serve any clear purpose.
Question 24 - What do you think of the draft policy wording for DM3 (Agricultural land and soil quality?
The policy justification presumes that minerals development often involves the use of large areas of agricultural land. However, hydrocarbon exploration or production wellsites often extend for no more than 1 ha. Accordingly, there should be some recognition in the text that hydrocarbon proposals are unlikely to have an adverse impact on best and most versatile agricultural land by virtue of their size.