Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

RE: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan - consultation
UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and
production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect
to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the
NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals
plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently
assessed on a case by case basis.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required
under the current policy framework set by government. Our view is that minerals plans should include
a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning
process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters
covered by other regulatory regimes. MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out
their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning
policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases including; Frack Free Balcombe
Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.
Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision
UKOOG Response:
We support the vision for the minerals local plan, in that it recognises that, ‘minerals are a valuable
natural resource and should be worked and used in a sustainable manner and where possible reused
to minimise waste’ and we agree that, ‘Mineral development will be designed, located, operated and
restored to ensure that environmental harm and impacts on climate change are minimised’.
Specific Policies
SP2: Biodiversity-Led Restoration
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG supports the approach outlined in Policy SP2 with regard to restoration of sites, which states,
‘Restoration schemes that seek to maximise biodiversity gains in accordance with the targets and
opportunities identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be supported’.
The onshore industry supports biodiversity net-gain principles, but also recognises that for small shortterm
exploration sites options for biodiversity enhancement might be more limited. For production
sites there will be greater opportunity for biodiversity net-gain to be achieved.
SP3: Climate Change
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG is supportive of the approach outlined in Policy SP3 that, ‘All new development, including
minerals extraction, should therefore seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change’, but we would like to point out that emissions
associated with the extraction of oil and gas, including the flaring of waste gasses, are regulated by
the Environment Agency through environmental permitting, which requires operators to use BAT
(Best Available Techniques) to control emissions during operations. We note that the justification text
in 3.31 states that, ‘All new development, including minerals extraction, should therefore seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,
including flooding, where practicable’. This contradicts the wording of the policy itself, which uses the
term ‘minimise’. For consistency we believe that the term ‘minimise’ should be used in both the policy
and the justification text.
We support the statement that, ‘This policy does not presume against the future extraction of energy
minerals. Indigenous mineral extraction has potential benefits in environmental and climate change
terms’, but for clarification the combustion or use of the final product (oil or gas) is not a consideration
for assessing extraction focussed planning applications.
SP4: Sustainable Transport
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of minimising traffic movement and utilising existing infrastructure
where it is feasible to do so, and the onshore industry aims to maximise the reuse and recycling of
materials and waste products from its operations to reduce transport movements.
In our view there would be merit in including a comment in the justification text that minerals,
including oil and gas, can only be worked where they are found, as meeting the test in part 2 of the
policy, ‘…. all new mineral working and mineral related development should be located as follows: b)
within close proximity to the County’s main highway network and existing transport routes in order to
avoid residential areas, minor roads, and minimise the impact of road transportation’, may not be
feasible to meet.
SP5: The Built, Historic and Natural Environment
UKOOG Response:
Onshore oil and gas sites are temporary in nature and do provide a good opportunity, post
decommissioning, to be restored to an enhanced environmental condition that maximises habitat
creation and an overall net gain in biodiversity, which should be considered at application stage. Under
UK regulation, oil and gas developments for the extraction of shale gas with the use of hydraulic
fracturing is prohibited from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks, other onshore oil and gas development proposals should be
considered on a case by case basis, which aligns with the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the
WMS 2018.
MP12: Hydrocarbons
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG are supportive of policy MP12, which states;
‘1. Exploration and appraisal of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located where this will not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
2. The commercial production of oil and gas will be supported, provided the site and
equipment:
a. Are not located in a protected area other than in exceptional circumstances where this does
not compromise the reasons for the designation and the need for development can be
demonstrated; and
b. Are located at the least sensitive location taking account of environmental, geological and
technical factors.
3. Proposals at each stage must provide for the restoration and subsequent aftercare of the
site, whether or not oil or gas is found’.
There is inconsistency between the terms used in ‘part 1 b’ for exploration and appraisal and ‘part 2
b’ for commercial production. In ‘part 1 b’ the term ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ is used, but
in ‘part 2 b’ the term ‘least sensitive location’ is used. In our view the terms should be the same
regardless of whether it is exploration or commercial production, the tests should be equally relevant.
Furthermore the term ‘least sensitive location’ is subjective and therefore should be replaced with the
term ‘will not have an unacceptable impact’.
Policy DM2: Water Resources and Flood Risk
UKOOG Response:
UKOOG recognise the importance of managing the water environment, but we would like to remind
the council that the Environment Agency (EA) regulate many of aspects stated in Policy DM2 and
supporting text, in particular the EA regulate groundwater activities through the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.