Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Object

Representation ID: 106

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Para 5.135-5.136
NWT strongly support the intent of this policy and the supporting text and have worked very closely with NCC for several years to develop this biodiversity-led plan. NWT also strongly welcome the explicit recognition in this paragraph that habitat restoration will require extended aftercare periods, if the benefits for biodiversity (which are assumed in determining the applications) are to be achieved. Our concern, however, is that to remain sound when applied in real world situations, the wording of the supporting text requires strengthening by explicit reference to the need for habitat management to be properly funded for the extended aftercare period by the Operator, and that this must be agreed prior to determination.

Without this amendment, 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, because if an assessment of the impacts of the proposed scheme is made which assumes benefits from long term high, quality habitats being created, then they must indeed be created and managed for at least 20 years to be effective.

Object

Representation ID: 107

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Para 3.49-3.55
NWT strongly support the intent of this policy and the supporting text. Our concern, however, is that (as mentioned in our representation form for SP2), the wording of paragraph 3.49 needs strengthening by the removal of “as far as possible”, which we do not consider to be a robust approach and can be used as a loophole for allowing unsustainable development and a therefore a means to inadvertently undermine the excellent intent of the Policy. Similarly we consider that, for the avoidance of doubt, there should be mention of the need to protect irreplaceable habitats also in this paragraph.


Without a specific statement to this effect, the policy is open to misinterpretation and therefore may not be sound. There is also a risk that by inadvertently appearing to support habitat creation over protection of existing BAP/Sn 41 habitats, this policy may be in breach of the NERC Biodiversity Duty .

The supporting text for the policy also omits mention of the possible impacts of air pollution on habitats. “Air” is listed as a topic in the Policy itself but does not appear to have supporting text. Mineral extraction has the potential to cause emissions that may be damaging to habitats (and their associated species) so this requires specific mention, in order to ensure that the policy can achieve its intent and therefore be considered sound.

Object

Representation ID: 108

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

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 SP1. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 109

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

NWT strongly support the biodiversity-led approach and we have worked closely with NCC to develop the principles, concepts and policy over several years, and have contributed substantively to the wording in the text and the site allocation briefs. We therefore support the inclusion of this policy in principle. Our concern, however, is that extra clarity is required that even excellent new habitat creation cannot replace existing high quality habitats, and would not reach a comparable quality even over several generations, and in some cases never. This is because the sources of propagules and colonising fauna for a new habitat are no longer available in many environments, so even the best new habitat creation cannot attract the diversity of fauna and flora that is present in a high value older habitat, and so this should not be used as a means to replace those existing habitats (and their associated species). In addition, it is extremely difficult to replicate the same edaphic conditions on which to establish the habitat, particularly using stored soils that have lost much of their microfauna. Without a specific statement to this effect, the policy is open to misinterpretation and therefore may not be sound. There is also a risk that by inadvertently appearing to support habitat creation over protection of existing BAP/Sn 41 habitats , this policy may be in breach of the NERC Biodiversity Duty .

In Nottinghamshire we have seen an example of exactly this, where an application has sought to claim that new habitats will replace existing high value designated habitats, so this is a real demonstrable risk, rather than a theoretical one.

Directly relevant is that para 3.49 describes the importance of the protection of habitats but then undermines this by the use of “as far as possible” , which we do not consider to be a robust approach and can be used as a loophole for allowing unsustainable development and a further means to inadvertently undermine the excellent intent of the Policy. This is covered under a separate NWT representation form.