Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 30826

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

true sustainability should reflect the need to continuously increase the proportion of mineral provided through re-use, recycling etc. Incorporating a requirement to promote or contribute to minerals obtained by methods that avoid irreversible consumption of resources could achieve this. The price of primary mineral is a key factor in the viability of recycling efforts. Releasing sites only when a certain proportion of supply is recycled and subject to condition that require the output to be matched by a certain proportion of recycled mineral are ways of achieving this ways and clearly prioritises recycled mineral over new extraction.

Comment

Representation ID: 30827

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

We agree with this draft strategic policy for sustainable development

Comment

Representation ID: 30828

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

We welcome the commitments to give priority to the extensions to existing sites.
We are concerned however that the policy does not specify how need for non-allocated sited will be assessed.
Culmulative local impact , particularly upon transport, should receive some priority

Comment

Representation ID: 30829

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

We welcome a policy to address the impacts of climate change but feel that by simply "avoiding areas of vulnerability" to climate change we may miss the opportunity to create new flood capacity and increase resilience. 3.35 suggests
That such could be accommodated - we feel it should be a default consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 30830

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

Whilst we support SP5 whilst the Newark area includes part of the "County main highways network", until essentially required improvements are made the A46 /A1 network around Newark, it should not be considered to offer a viable transportation facility and no new sites should be opened in the Newark area until such improvements are in place.

we suggest instead of " within close proximity to existing or proposed markets", should read "as close as possible by environmentally acceptable routes.
We suggest "close proximity" is a matter of opinion whilst our suggestion is a matter of where minerals and routes occur.

Comment

Representation ID: 30831

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

We welcome that the policy addresses amenity. However we consider there needs to be a requirement to consider alternatives with lesser impacts and thus should be made explicit.
All proposals must demonstrate that the need cannot be met in the foreseeable future from alternative sites that are viable, suitable and available to serve the same market requirement, the development of which having lesser residual impacts.

Comment

Representation ID: 30832

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

The use of "Green Belt land" should be a last resource and funds should be set aside to finance restoration prior to completion of works

Comment

Representation ID: 30833

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

We support SP8 and give emphasis on the need to safeguarding of environmental transportation links and facilities and the handling , processing and distribution of recycled and secondary aggregate mineral. This we feel is essential where large scale infrastructure improvement are taking place with abundant quantities of recycling material. We were disappointed to see that there were an inadequate number of suitable sites for recycling of the extract from the Newark Sewer upgrade project.

Comment

Representation ID: 30834

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

We support the policy approach towards aggregate provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 30835

Received: 19/09/2018

Respondent: P.A.G.E.

WE agree with the draft site specific plans