Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Object

Representation ID: 22

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Vision is generally sound but needs further emphasis on the need for environmental sustainability of mineral working, in order to adequately reflect latest Government Policy as expressed in the 25 Year Environment Plan.

In addition, the use of "have regard to" is too weak to ensure a robust approach to the protection of environmental assets , as it is possible to have regard to a matter without either giving it due weight or acting upon it as an imperative.

Object

Representation ID: 88

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT strongly support the intent of this policy and the supporting text. Our concern, however, is that to remain sound when applied in real world situations, the wording of policy requires strengthening by the removal of references to unspecified reasons for why the need for a development might outweigh the biodiversity impacts. Experience in Nottinghamshire has demonstrated that it is difficult to quantify the value of different factors, such as the need for a common mineral versus the value of an irreplaceable habitat, and that this causes problems at a development management level, which can result in decisions that are contrary to policy. It is necessary therefore that either these references (which can be used as loopholes to evade the excellent intent of the policy) should be removed, or a robust framework for how that value is quantified and weighted should be agreed in order to ensure robust development management decisions.

It also essential that this policy reflects the Government’s imperative to achieve net biodiversity gain in order to be complaint with the 25YEP and emerging Government policy.

Without these amendments, the policy is open to misinterpretation and therefore may not be sound. There is also a risk that the loopholes may inadvertently result in breaching the MPA’s responsibilities under the NERC Biodiversity Duty.

Object

Representation ID: 89

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because of the inherent contradiction between the Plan-led approach whilst simultaneously making specific provision for development on non-allocated sites within Policy MP1. If the plan-making process has been robust and based on good data, then there should be no need for development on non-allocated sites. A robust plan review progress at fixed intervals may identify the need to bring new sites forward for further allocations in a proper manner, where the need has changed, in which case they can be compared to other potential sites in a rigorous way. It is not a rigorous process for a single operator’s proposal to be brought forward at a particular point in time, and therefore not be subject to a proper comparative test against others prospective sites, including an SA.

By undermining the plan-led approach, it is possible that this policy could inadvertently breach the requirements of the NPPF and so may not be legally compliant.

Object

Representation ID: 90

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT recognise the need to allocate sufficient land for future mineral needs, subject to accurate data and a regular review of actual sales and needs against predictions. NWT object strongly, however, to the allocation of a new site at Mill Hill nr Barton in Fabis. We believe that this allocation renders this area of the Plan unsound because it is fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

The proposed allocation would destroy all or part of 5 LWS, would indirectly damage a further 4 LWS which are in very close proximity and cause indirect damaging effects on 2 adjacent SSSI , a designated Ancient Woodland and a large area of BAP/Sn 41 priority habitat. This site is also known to host a significant number of protected species whose populations would be reduced or lost as a result of the scheme, as would several BAP/Sn 41 species. Allocating a site of such high existing biodiversity is therefore not compliant with Policies SO1 and SP5 and so is unsound. It is possible that such an allocation also breaches the MPA’s Biodiversity Duty under the NERC Act and so may not be legally compliant.

This proposed site scored worse in the SA (-13 and -3) than nearly all other sites that were assessed, and has been allocated whilst other sites that did not score as badly have not. This fundamentally undermines the aims of SA as an independent tool for choosing between sites, and so also undermines the soundness of this Plan, particularly the stated intent to achieve sustainable development. The descriptive text for the environmental impacts predicted for this proposed site in the SA is clear in stating that there would both short and long term negative impacts on biodiversity and landscape (as well as other factors outside the remit of NWT) . Indeed it makes clear that there would be a net loss of biodiversity if this site were to proceed.

It is also notable that in the Assessment of Multiple Environmental Sensitivities report, this proposed allocation has been assessed as being red – ie. a scheme would adversely impact several environmental assets.

The text is also inaccurate in stating that the quarry is predicted to start in 2019, this is not the case, as the applicant (having submitted a presumptive application in the absence of an allocation) has so far failed to produce adequate information to inform a proper determination by the MPA.

Object

Representation ID: 92

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT recognise the need to allocate sufficient land for future mineral needs, subject to accurate data and a regular review of actual sales and needs against predictions. NWT object strongly, however, to the allocation of MP3d Bestwood 2 North. We believe that this allocation renders this area of the Plan unsound because it is fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

The proposed allocation is entirely located within a LWS which would be destroyed as a result of extraction. The proposed site also lies with the ppSPA buffer zone and between two parts of the Sherwood Forest Important Bird Area, upon which any future Special Protection Area (SPA) designation may be based. Allocating a designated LWS is not compliant with Policies SO1 and SP5 and so is unsound. It is possible that such an allocation also breaches the MPA’s Biodiversity Duty under the NERC Act and so may not be legally compliant.

This proposed site scored poorly in the SA (-9 and -2) compared to several other sites that were assessed, and has been allocated whilst other sites that did not score as badly have not (eg. Coddington at -7, -2). This fundamentally undermines the aims of SA as an independent tool for choosing between sites, and so also undermines the soundness of this Plan, particularly the stated intent to achieve sustainable development. The descriptive text for the environmental impacts predicted for this proposed site in the SA is clear in stating that there would be short term “very negative” impacts on biodiversity and also on landscape when considered with Greenbelt impacts (as well as other factors outside the remit of NWT) . Indeed there could be a net loss of biodiversity if this site were to proceed, as it is unlikely that new habitats created through restoration would be of a higher biodiversity value than those that currently exist, and there would be further indirect impacts on the habitats and species of the remainder of the LWS as a result of extraction operations.

Object

Representation ID: 94

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because of the inherent contradiction between the Plan-led approach whilst simultaneously making specific provision for development on non-allocated sites within Policy MP6. If the plan-making process has been robust and based on good data, then there should be no need for development on non-allocated sites. A robust plan review progress at fixed intervals may identify the need to bring new sites forward for further allocations in a proper manner, where the need has changed, in which case they can be compared to other potential sites in a rigorous way. It is not a rigorous process for a single operator’s proposal to be brought forward at a particular point in time, and therefore not be subject to a proper comparative test against others prospective sites, including an SA.

By undermining the plan-led approach, it is possible that this policy could inadvertently breach the requirements of the NPPF and so may not be legally compliant.

Object

Representation ID: 98

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because of the inherent contradiction between the Plan-led approach whilst simultaneously making specific provision for development on non-allocated sites within Policy MP7. If the plan-making process has been robust and based on good data, then there should be no need for development on non-allocated sites. A robust plan review progress at fixed intervals may identify the need to bring new sites forward for further allocations in a proper manner, where the need has changed, in which case they can be compared to other potential sites in a rigorous way. It is not a rigorous process for a single operator’s proposal to be brought forward at a particular point in time, and therefore not be subject to a proper comparative test against others prospective sites, including an SA.

By undermining the plan-led approach, it is possible that this policy could inadvertently breach the requirements of the NPPF and so may not be legally compliant.

In addition, NWT object to this Policy because we do not agree MP7c Bantycock Quarry South should be allocated as currently shown on the Plan, as the proposed site boundary includes an LWS and another lies immediately adjacent, which could be subject to damaging indirect impacts. This is recognised in the SA and is a significant reason for the -7, -1 score. Were the LWS to be removed from the proposed site allocation and the boundary moved further away from the adjacent LWS, then NWT could support this allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 99

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because of the inherent contradiction between the Plan-led approach whilst simultaneously making specific provision for potential development on non-allocated sites within Policy MP8. If the plan-making process has been robust and based on good data, then there should be no need for development on non-allocated sites. A robust plan review progress at fixed intervals may identify the need to bring new sites forward for further allocations in a proper manner, where the need has changed, in which case they can be compared to other potential sites in a rigorous way. It is not a rigorous process for a single operator’s proposal to be brought forward at a particular point in time, and therefore not be subject to a proper comparative test against others prospective sites, including an SA. Given the predicted life for Two Oaks Farm Quarry is 40 years, well beyond the recommende 10 year land bank for this resource, the inclusion of bullet point 2 is unnecessary and incongruous.

By undermining the plan-led approach, it is possible that this policy could inadvertently breach the requirements of the NPPF and so may not be legally compliant.

Object

Representation ID: 100

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because it lags behind the national recognition of the climate emergency and the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the policy of allowing further coal extraction where need can be demonstrated is inconsistent with the Government’s most recent target to reduce climate changing gas emissions by 2050 to 100% below 1990 levels as stated in The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019. This Plan period encompasses the 4th and 5th Carbon Budget periods, with Government targets for cuts in CO2 emissions of 51% by 2025 and 57% by 2030, so there should no new coal extraction from the County in the MLP in order to make Nottinghamshire’s contribution to meeting those targets

Object

Representation ID: 102

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because it lags behind the national recognition of the climate emergency and the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The policy should commit to a reduction in output of oil and gas over the plan period in order to be consistent with the Government’s most recent target to reduce climate changing gas emissions by 2050 to 100% below 1990 levels as stated in The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019. This Plan period encompasses the 4th and 5th Carbon Budget periods, with Government targets for cuts in CO2 emissions of 51% by 2025 and 57% by 2030, so there should be a reduction in oil and gas extraction from the County in the MLP in order to make Nottinghamshire’s contribution to meeting those targets

In addition NWT object in principle to the premise of developing unconventional hydrocarbon resources, both for climate change reasons but specifically also where the short term and long term impacts are poorly understand in relation to Nottinghamshire’s heavily fractured sandstone geology and aquifer.