Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Object

Representation ID: 296

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Strategic Objective 1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development
This strategic objective is unsound because it is poorly drafted and is therefore ineffective (para 35 NPPF). It includes the aim of “more efficient exploitation” without specifying what the comparator is. More than what? Is it more compared to the operation of the last plan? If so, how is efficiency judged? Is it more than the current national average? Again, if so, what is the base-line measure?
A further aspect of the unsoundness is that the objective to “Secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire” is too narrowly drawn. The objective relates to “Improving the sustainability of minerals development” which includes but does not solely relate to market delivery. The objective is therefore not effective in delivering sustainable minerals development.
The Vision for the Minerals Local Plan Publication Version (MLPPV) states that “mineral development will be concentrated in locations that offer the greatest level of accessibility to the major markets and growth areas and to sustainable transport nodes to encourage sustainable patterns and modes of movement.” However, the complete absence of numerical or other analysis in the MLPPV or indeed the County Council’s Local Aggregate Assessments in recent years of: a) what are the major markets and growth areas; and b) the failure to specify sites which utilise the most sustainable modes of movement such as barging means that the MLPPV is fundamentally flawed. The Vision fails the ‘justified’ test of Paragraph 35 of the NPPF in that it is not based on proportionate evidence and accordingly is unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 297

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SO3: Addressing climate change
This strategic objective is unsound because it makes no reference to carbon budgets and managing or assessing impact on carbon emissions in relation to the declared climate emergency. It therefore does not meet the criterion of effectiveness as set out in Para 35 of the NPPF. Given the time frame of the minerals plan, and the national goals of carbon neutrality, the strategic objective lacks any meaningful targets in relation to the need to minimise, mitigate and offset emissions or to encourage the use of recycled and alternative materials.

Object

Representation ID: 298

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SO5, SO6 and SO7
We are supportive of the strategic objectives dealing with minimising impacts on local communities (SO5), protecting and enhancing natural assets (SO6) and protecting and enhancing historic assets (SO7). However, the Minerals Local Plan is unsound because these objectives are not applied in the development and application of the site appraisal and allocation methodology. The goal of developing an appropriate and sustainable spatial distribution of sites (SO1) overrides the goals set out in SOs 5, 6 and 7. Moreover the goal of promoting sustainable modes of transport (SO1) is not applied as a consideration in the site allocation process
A sustainable spatial distribution of sites is not one which is simply determined by proximity to market and transport costs. Indeed, it can be argued that given that potential developers are probably better informed about the geography of the market and the economics of working a site than NCC, then it can be assumed that all the sites put forward by extraction companies are equally economically viable. In developing a Minerals Local Plan the goal of developing a sustainable spatial distribution is therefore dependent upon ensuring that of the sites allocated, those selected have the least impact on wider sustainability goals.

Object

Representation ID: 299

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SO5, SO6 and SO7
We are supportive of the strategic objectives dealing with minimising impacts on local communities (SO5), protecting and enhancing natural assets (SO6) and protecting and enhancing historic assets (SO7). However, the Minerals Local Plan is unsound because these objectives are not applied in the development and application of the site appraisal and allocation methodology. The goal of developing an appropriate and sustainable spatial distribution of sites (SO1) overrides the goals set out in SOs 5, 6 and 7. Moreover the goal of promoting sustainable modes of transport (SO1) is not applied as a consideration in the site allocation process
A sustainable spatial distribution of sites is not one which is simply determined by proximity to market and transport costs. Indeed, it can be argued that given that potential developers are probably better informed about the geography of the market and the economics of working a site than NCC, then it can be assumed that all the sites put forward by extraction companies are equally economically viable. In developing a Minerals Local Plan the goal of developing a sustainable spatial distribution is therefore dependent upon ensuring that of the sites allocated, those selected have the least impact on wider sustainability goals.

Object

Representation ID: 300

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SO5, SO6 and SO7
We are supportive of the strategic objectives dealing with minimising impacts on local communities (SO5), protecting and enhancing natural assets (SO6) and protecting and enhancing historic assets (SO7). However, the Minerals Local Plan is unsound because these objectives are not applied in the development and application of the site appraisal and allocation methodology. The goal of developing an appropriate and sustainable spatial distribution of sites (SO1) overrides the goals set out in SOs 5, 6 and 7. Moreover the goal of promoting sustainable modes of transport (SO1) is not applied as a consideration in the site allocation process
A sustainable spatial distribution of sites is not one which is simply determined by proximity to market and transport costs. Indeed, it can be argued that given that potential developers are probably better informed about the geography of the market and the economics of working a site than NCC, then it can be assumed that all the sites put forward by extraction companies are equally economically viable. In developing a Minerals Local Plan the goal of developing a sustainable spatial distribution is therefore dependent upon ensuring that of the sites allocated, those selected have the least impact on wider sustainability goals.

Object

Representation ID: 301

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version (MLPPV) does not meet the criteria for ‘justification’ as set out in para 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework, because in relation to the site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, it does not apply an appropriate site selection strategy that takes account the reasonable alternatives. The justification for the selection of the site at Barton and the omission of other sites considered at the draft stage (e.g. Shelford) is not based on a proportionate and consistent evaluation of the available evidence Contrary to the objectives of the NPPF as a whole, the allocation of Mill Hill does not constitute sustainable development. Specifically:
a) Unsoundness of site selection methodology: The methodology in site selection is unsound and unjustified because it is not aligned with the results of the public consultation at the Issues and Options stage.
b) Application of site selection methodology: The application of the existing site selection methodology is unsound because of the weight given to geographical spread. The plan lacks justification because there is a significant absence of evidence to support the application of geographical spread. We show that contrary to the position of the County Council, the allocation of Shelford would not affect the geographical spread of sites and not selecting Shelford misses a highly significant opportunity to embrace sustainable transport principles.
c) Site Assessment for Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis: The site at Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis, has the greatest score for negative impacts of all the sites selected for allocation in the Plan. Page 61 of the Site Selection Methodology and Assessment (SSMA) May 2019 states “In assessment against sustainability appraisal objectives, the site scores very negatively during the operational phase (our emphasis) and slightly negatively in the long term.” We consider, however, that the site should score more negatively than is conveyed in the Sustainability Appraisal: there are highly negative impacts in relation to heritage, ecology, landscape, flood risk, air quality and impact on human health and quality of life. The allocation of Mill Hill Barton in Fabis has significantly greater adverse effects than Shelford, which we consider should be allocated instead. The selection of Mill Hill, Barton in Fabis is therefore unjustified.
It should be noted also that as a result of a planning application for gravel extraction for part of the proposed site at Barton in Fabis a number of other adverse issues can be identified that makes the allocation the Minerals Plan unjustified. The planning application at Barton on Fabis (reference ES/3712) is for a site larger than the proposed allocation and includes land within Nottingham City. The Parish Council has objected to this application and has followed its progress closely. We recognise that the application will need to be determined on its own merits but it is clear from correspondence from the County Council that there is clear fundamental harm derived from the application proposals and we append the County Council’s letter to the Applicant dated 30 August 2019 (Our Appendix 4) .
In regard to Heritage, the County Council state:
“Following consultation, officers disagree with a number of the conclusions of the assessment and are of the view the development would result in the following impacts:
- There would be substantial harm to the setting of Clifton Hall (Grade I listed) and its Registered Park and Garden (grade II listed) during extraction;
- There would be less than substantial harm to Clifton Hall and its Registered Park and Garden following restoration.”
Substantial harm to a Grade I listed building should be wholly exceptional and to a Registered Park and Garden, exceptional, as defined by paragraph 194 of the NPPF. It is highly pertinent to note that the officers of the County Council do not consider this harm would be likely to be reduced through amendments. While they advise that substantial public benefits could be forthcoming “through the improvements to the understanding of Clifton Hall Registered Park and Garden and the preparation and implementation of a Conservation Management Plan to improve the condition and management of the heritage asset”. We do not consider that this would be either feasible or sufficient to mitigate the harm created to Clifton Hall and the Registered Park and Gardens and alone is sufficient justification to de-select the site as a proposed allocation.
Further supporting detail is contained in the full representation.

Object

Representation ID: 302

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Summary
The policy is unsound because it is not ‘effective’ or consistent with national policy in delivering sustainable development through appropriate biodiversity led restoration and therefore fails the tests of Paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Specifically:
a) it fails to set out what happens where biodiversity gains are not maximised;
b) it does not reference restoration measures to any mitigation hierarchy; and,
c) it fails to specify requirements for sustainable long-term aftercare where restoration takes place.

Supporting information is included in the full representation

Object

Representation ID: 303

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We are supportive of the inclusion of climate change in the suite of strategic policies that shape the Minerals Local Plan. However, SP3 is unsound because it is deficient in two respects which undermine its effectiveness:
a) That the statement in point b) of Policy SP3 needs be modified to clarify what ‘vulnerability’ is referring to. Flood risk is identified as an issue. Communities, natural and historic assets and agricultural soils also need to be highlighted. The need to minimise the vulnerability of existing biodiversity assets to climate change impacts should be identified as an issue, and also should be a factor in determining the general allocation of sites for development.
b) That while the reference to restoration is appropriate in point 1c) of policy SP3, the policy also needs to state that such restoration schemes can contribute to climate change adaptation providing that they compensate for the impacts they have had as a result of the development.
We are supportive of the recognition that in some circumstances mineral development can provide a number of opportunities to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of future climate change (3.34). However, we are concerned that this theme is not carried over into expectations in terms of the issues outlined in point 1a) of Policy SP3. The location, design and operation, and significantly the restoration of sites, should not only seek to avoid climate change impacts, but also deliver a net gain in terms of climate change adaptation.
Given the time frame of the minerals plan, and the national goals of carbon neutrality, the policy fails to be effective in that it lacks any meaningful targets in relation to the need to assess climate change impacts of plans and options. It also fails to provide any targets for the management of carbon emissions or to show how the use of recycled or alternative materials can be encouraged by the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 304

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Summary
We contend that the policy is unsound because:
a) The objectives of the Policy have not been appropriately integrated into site selection decisions and Policy SP4 is not effective.
b) Accordingly, the MLPPV as a whole does not have sufficient regard for sustainable transport and is not an appropriate strategy, failing the ‘justified’ test of paragraph 35 of the NPPF

Supporting detail is included in the full representation

Object

Representation ID: 305

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Barton PC, Thrumpton PM, Lark Hill RA, Clifton Village RA, SAVE

Number of people: 5

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Summary
Policy SP5 is unsound and fails to meet the ‘effective or ‘justified tests of NPPF paragraph 35 because:
a) The emphasis on restoration throughout should be reduced and the importance of preservation and enhancement of assets stressed in line with paragraph 174 of the NPPF in order that the policy can be justified.
b) The lack of transparency in the way Policy SP5 is applied in the site allocation process makes it ineffective. The emphasis on restoration throughout should be reduced and the importance of protection and maintenance of assets stressed. Accordingly, the Plan, as a whole does not have sufficient regard for the built, historic and natural environment transport and is not an appropriate strategy, failing the ‘justified’ test of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Supporting information is included in the full representation.