Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Object

Representation ID: 250

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Paragraph 2.3 identifies the significant overlap of housing areas, business and employment
between Nottingham and South Yorkshire as well as Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Derby
which is supported. However, recognition should also be made of the potential pull on
mineral resources to meet the anticipated demands from these growth areas. Particularly
given the proximity of active operations to County boundaries (Key Diagram). Conversely
paragraph 2.4 acknowledges that growth within Nottingham could affect surrounding areas.
This duty to cooperate is a key theme which should be given increased status within the
Plan. There are concerns as outlined above in regard to the LAA that there is a general
assumption that ‘trends’ for export/import will continue.
Paragraph 2.27 identifies that Nottinghamshire has traditionally supplied large amounts of
sand and gravel to neighbouring Authorities. The result of the high quality of the resource as
well as a shortage of material in other areas. The paragraph identifies that this trend is likely
to continue. However, contradicts itself by referencing the resource depletion in the Idle
Valley (north of the County) which could reduce the amount exported. Regardless of the
location of active sand and gravel operations, the demand for mineral will still continue.
Adjoining Authority areas such as Nottinghamshire where there are significant reserves of
sand and gravel available (albeit not necessarily currently in active operations) will need to
address this within their Plan under the requirements of Paragraph 25 of the NPPF.
These are issues fundamental to securing steady and adequate supply of mineral from
Nottinghamshire and should be given more prominence throughout the document.

Object

Representation ID: 251

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Strategic Objective 1 and a locational strategy to securing mineral supply is supported. This
approach maintains the spread of operations across the County and maintains a security in
supply to the specific markets that these serve. As well as seeking to ‘efficiently deliver
resources’, the objective should include ‘effectively deliver’ resources to ensure that
operational capacity in addition to permitted reserves is available to meet anticipated
demand.

Object

Representation ID: 252

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The principle of Strategic Objective 2 is supported. However, the title should be to provide a
sufficient supply of minerals – this will encompass the requirement for adequate provision based on a review of anticipated demand over the Plan period as well as a steady supply of mineral to ensure that the operational capacity of operations can meet the annual
production requirements as advocated by paragraph 203 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 253

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The general policy on minerals provision should ensure that the Plan maximises its flexibility
to respond to changes in demand. As we have advocated through previous representations,
the 10 years sales average alone does not give an accurate portrayal of the demand scenario
for Nottinghamshire. Closure of long established sand and gravel quarries, nonreplenishment
of reserves, continuing impact from the 2008 recession on production
capacity and production movements out of the County, have all impacted output from
Nottinghamshire. The reduction in sand and gravel output over the 10 year period should not be translated into a long term reduction in demand in Nottinghamshire.
Section (a) of Policy SP1 states that the strategy will be to identify ‘suitable land for mineral extraction to maintain a steady and adequate supply of minerals during the Plan period’.
This is not considered positively prepared or in accordance with the NPPF and is therefore
unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 254

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Whilst Tarmac support paragraph 3.11 and a ‘restoration led approach’ when considering
mineral operations, it is considered that a biodiversity led approach/focus taken by Policy
SP2 is overly onerous, not an effective strategy and is therefore unsound. As opposed to
being categorical about ‘significantly enhancing’ biodiversity (paragraph 3.12), the policy
should be supportive where it is ‘possible’ or ‘appropriate’. The policy as worded makes no
reference/acknowledgment to the beneficial use of land and the opportunities/potential
aspirations of landowners to have land restored back to economic/commercial/agricultural
after uses. Paragraph 3.14 goes part way to recognising that there needs to be a
balance/weighting of restoration considerations but it neglects to reference the economic
potential, instead referring only to social/recreation and environmental opportunities.
Paragraph 3.14 discusses restoration for leisure or agriculture. Leisure and agricultural
9
restoration are the most common forms of restoration strategy. We agree with the
sentiment that there are opportunities to incorporate biodiversity/habitat enhancement but
there should not be emphasis on a biodiversity led approach.
This policy should be retitled to ‘restoration led approach to minerals development’ to
provide emphasis on a restoration focus without being overly prescriptive of restoration
type. In addition, the policy makes no acknowledgement of the long term financial burden
on ecological management post restoration and who has to fund and manage these areas.
Paras 3.23 to 3.25 should commence with the wording ‘If restoration allows, priority habitats
… . This would be more effective in delivering the Plan and strategy to reflect the comments
made above.

Object

Representation ID: 255

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In accordance with the NPPF, new development should be directed to areas outside of flood zones. However, the policy as worded does not acknowledge that minerals can only be worked where they are found. In the case of sand and gravel and river sand and gravels
working will often fall within areas of flood risk. Notwithstanding this, the policy and sub text
should acknowledge that minerals development is considered an appropriate form of development within a flood zone in accordance with the planning practice guidance, Table 2:
Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, Paragraph: 066 Reference ID: 7-066-20140306. We do
not object to the Policy but consider the above should be recognised within the sub text.

Object

Representation ID: 256

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Whilst seeking to support the use of sustainable modes of transport, the policy should be
worded to acknowledge/recognise the potential for impact upon the viability of mineral
extraction.
Minerals can only be worked where they are found. The requirement to be located close to
proposed markets is overly onerous, not positively prepared or an effective strategy and is
therefore considered to be unsound. The value of the product and the availability locally will
determine the distance it needs to travel. The pull of resource into the South Yorkshire and
Doncaster market areas is a good example of this. It is considered that this policy is overly
onerous and discredits the geographical spread/locational strategy which is being pursued
by the Mineral Planning Authority.

Object

Representation ID: 257

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Tarmac support the recognition within paragraph 3.45 that detrimental impact on the
natural and built environment as a result of mineral extraction is temporary in nature and
can bring about many environmental benefits. In addition, paragraph 3.51 acknowledges
that in regard to heritage and cultural assets, mineral development provides major
opportunities to understand the County’s rich archaeological heritage.
Policy SP5 as worded is a repeat of other environmental policy and is not positively prepared
and is therefore considered unsound. The policy as worded does not recognise the
weighting of all facets of sustainable development that should be applied when considering
applications for development. In regard to mineral extraction, whilst there may be potential
for environmental impact, the economic benefit of mineral extraction should be afforded
‘great weight’ (paragraph 205 of the NPPF). In addition, the significance of impact depends
on the significance of the asset it affects. Paragraph 171 of the NPPF states that Plans
should, ‘distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated
sites’. As such it is considered this policy is unnecessary and could be deleted.
Paragraph 3.63 should be deleted as issues associated with infrastructure is handled under
the provisions of the Mining Code.

Object

Representation ID: 261

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is considered that Policy SP7 is not positively prepared, an effective strategy or consistent
with the NPPF and is therefore unsound. Policy SP7 should refer to ‘known’ locations of
specific mineral resource as opposed to ‘economically important’ in accordance with
paragraph 204 of the NPPF. This would recognise that mineral resource is a finite resource.
Extraction of resource may not be economically viable at one stage but may become so as
reserves deplete.
It is considered that the Minerals Plan would be more effective if it was to define more
specific Mineral Consultation Areas. The proposed approach to define consultation areas on the same scale as safeguarding areas could mean that large amounts of development will be
caught within an MSA/MCA which would be onerous on developers having to potentially
submit minerals assessments and the MPA in assessing the potential for impact of
development on mineral resource/mineral associated infrastructure.
As well as safeguarding mineral associated infrastructure, rail heads should be expanded to
include rail heads at coal fired power stations. A wharf facility at Colwick is specifically
referenced for safeguarding. Tarmac has existing river wharf facilities at Besthorpe Quarry
(loading) and Cromwell Quarry (receiving) which are referenced on the Policies Maps and
Tarmac supports this.
The importance of Local Plans (District and Borough Council) in understanding and
appreciating the role of safeguarding and defining areas/sites within Local Development Plan
Documents should be explained within the Mineral Plan. The planning system is a tiered
system with the policies contained within the Mineral Plan and Local Plan pertinent to the
consideration of Planning Applications at County and District level. The MPA has an
important role in ensuring mineral safeguarding is not perceived as just a County function
but guiding and supporting Local Authorities to appreciate they also have a role to play in
accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance.
In light of the above and the identification of safeguarding areas on the policies maps Plan 4
should not be required.
Paragraph 3.90 is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 204 (e) and should be deleted. Policies
should safeguard all ancillary infrastructure and the NPPF does not distinguish that only
strategic facilities should be safeguarded. Whilst it may be unnecessary to identify all
facilities on policies maps, the policy wording itself ensures that these facilities will be
safeguarded.
Policies regarding safeguarding should make reference to the ‘agent of change’ identified at
paragraph 182 of the NPPF. This seeks to ensure that the onus is on Applicants for new
development to put in place adequate mitigation to ensure that the development would not place unreasonable restrictions on existing businesses/operations.

Object

Representation ID: 262

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy MP1 is not considered positively prepared and is therefore unsound.
Comments regarding the analysis of predicted aggregate demand have been presented within the section regarding the Local Aggregate Assessment above.
The 10 years average sales figures are not the most appropriate methodology for forecasting
aggregate demand. Forecasts of demand should be based on a rolling average of 10 years
sales data, other relevant information and through assessment of all other supply options.
The 10 years average sales are heavily influenced by the impact of the recession. This is
particularly apparent given the picture across the East Midlands which in all other cases have
seen increases in sales figures. Whilst, recycled and secondary aggregate has a role to play in
meeting demand in some circumstances it cannot be relied upon for ensuring continuity in
supply. In addition, given the location of the County it is unlikely that demand can be met
from other sources (for example marine). Considering this, the other relevant local
information is particularly important in forecasting future demand in the County.
Considering the above the Mineral Planning Authority is underproviding sufficient sand and
gravel resource over the Plan period. We support the MPA in their previous approach which
reviewed sales data pre and post-recession to give a greater appreciation of likely
anticipated demand in recession and a period of economic growth.
The operational capacity of permitted operations within the County needs consideration to
ensure that anticipated demand is met. A decline in sales is not necessarily an indication of a
decline in demand. Production moving outside of the County will impact upon perceived
sales figures as well as sites/resource not being replaced when exhausted.
A Delivery schedule has been prepared as Appendix 1 to the Draft Plan. Tarmac have
enclosed an edited version (Appendix 1a) which shows the available production capacity
from existing sites and proposed allocations as proposed within the Plan against the
identified annual requirement for sand and gravel. The sites proposed for sand and gravel
extraction including allocations are insufficient to even meet that depressed annual
requirement. An edited version is also enclosed at Appendix 1b which shows how additional
allocations could assist in meeting the identified shortfall.
Although the perceived landbank is sufficient at the start of the Plan period, sites will
become exhausted during the Plan period and provision should be made for replacements.
The Plan should not focus or specify a definitive/maximum amount of mineral provision. The
sales data is an indication of current demand and should not be perceived as a maximum
requirement. The Plan needs to provide flexibility to support additional sites/resources
coming forward during the Plan period to meet demand/operational requirements to serve
existing/future markets. Policy M1 should be updated to provide a more realistic sand and
gravel provision figure which is reflective of economic growth at pre-recession levels. As a
minimum the policy should be clear that the provision of sand and gravel, Sherwood
Sandstone and Crushed Rock are minimum requirements.
Part 2 of the Policy or as a minimum the justification section should advocate the need for
the Plan to be flexible and the ability to respond quickly and positively to upturns in demand.

Section 3 of the policy does not make any allowance for the benefit of sustainable extensions to existing operations in securing continued delivery of mineral as advocated by the Strategic Policy SP2.