Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan …...Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local...

REPLACEMENT NOTTINGHAMSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEPOSIT

REPORT OF INSPECTOR INTO OBJECTIONS

Inquiry: April 20th – July 20th 2004 Inspector: A Mead BSc (Hons) MRTPI MIQ

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

General Comments 1

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Sustainable Development 3

Chapter 3: Environment Protection 5

Chapter 4: Reclamation 23

Chapter 5: Mineral Exploration 30

Chapter 6: Sand and Gravel 31

Chapter 7: Sherwood Sandstone 67

Chapter 8: Limestone 69

Chapter 9: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates 70

Chapter 10: Gypsum 71

Chapter 11: Clay 74

Chapter 12: Coal 82

Chapter 13: Oil, Coalbed Methane and Mine gas 86

Proposals Maps 86

Appendix 1 Schedule of objections

Appendix 2 Appearances at inquiry

Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan: Inspector’s Report

A. GENERAL COMMENTS RELATING TO MORE THAN ONE CHAPTER

FORMAT OF THE PLAN

Objection No. 615 GOEM

Issue:- Whether the Plan should be shortened.

Conclusions

A1. Although the Plan might be said to be long, I consider that it is comprehensive and readable with no unnecessary duplication. I agree with the Council that any wholesale changes to the Plan to reduce its length would have resulted in a delay to the process leading to inquiry and adoption. In my view, this would be unacceptable. Therefore, I shall not recommend any change to the Plan as a result of this objection.

Recommendation

A2. I recommend no modification to the Plan.

********************

REVISION OF MINERALS PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTE (MPG) 6

Objection No. 1695 Mrs. D. Chester

Issue:- Whether to delay the Plan until after publication of MPG6.

Conclusions

A3. The Plan takes into account the latest revision of the statistical guidance given in MPG6 (June 2003) and subsequent apportionment by the East Midlands Regional Assembly (February 2004). No material changes were necessary to the Plan to meet the locally agreed apportionment. Therefore, I consider that the aim of the objection has been met and that no further delay is warranted.

Recommendation

A4. I recommend no modification to the Plan.

********************

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

PLANS AIMS: Para 1.5c Revision R4

Subsequent Objection No. 2122 English Heritage

Issue:- Whether the Plan’s Aims (Environment) should be expanded.

1


Conclusions

1.1 In my opinion, the concerns expressed in the objection are covered by the fifth bullet point within paragraph 1.5 (c), and also within the first bullet point. Therefore, in the interests of brevity, I do not accept that the Plan should be modified.

Recommendation

1.2 I recommend no modification to the Plan.

********************

MONITORING AND REVIEW: Para 1.21

Objection No’s. 360 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 644 CPRE

Para 1.21 Revision R9

Subsequent Objection No. 2135 GOEM

Issues:- The role of monitoring; the need to review the Plan/MPG6.

Conclusions

1.3 Paragraph 1.21 sets out the key issues or indicators which would require monitoring. If allocations prove to be excessive in the light of future assessments of supply and demand, it is possible to de-allocate unimplemented sites in any review of the Plan. The Plan conforms generally with Government advice on the extent to which it attempts to foresee demands for minerals, allocates land which is estimated to be required over the plan period and describes how monitoring will be undertaken. Existing procedures enable the consequences of the monitoring to trigger a review of the Plan. Therefore, I do not consider that the Plan needs to describe in any further detail what might or might not be possible to monitor or the consequences of monitoring.

1.4 The Plan has taken into account the agreed local apportionment of the aggregate guideline for the East Midlands so the aims of the particular objection have been met.

1.5 So far as the need to review the Plan is concerned, the Council have stated that a review of the Plan should be complete by 2009, but I accept that other circumstances may interfere. The new development plan procedures may well cause a major reassessment of when and how any review of policies and proposals is conducted as well might any additional government advice on how the supply of and demand for minerals should be treated. However, I accept that the Plan could be modified by Further Proposed Change (FPC) 6 so as to make clear the Council’s intentions.

Recommendation

1.6 I recommend that the Plan is modified by FPC6.

2


********************

CHAPTER 2: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES: Para 2.5

Objection No’s 361 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 621 GOEM, 767 English Nature


Subsequent Objection No. 2013 CPRE

Issues:- Whether the objectives for sustainable minerals development are appropriately expressed.

Conclusions

2.1 The sustainable objectives in Paragraph 2.5 of the Plan appear to be based mostly but not wholly on paragraph 35 of MPG1. Therefore, it is accurate for the Plan now to include the phrase “… and where appropriate expanding on …”.

2.2 I agree with the Council that criteria (ii) and (iii) cover separate issues dealing with the environment during and after operations and should not be merged. I agree with the points raised: - minerals can only be worked where they occur; and, the degree of protection which should be given to locally and nationally designated areas. However, in my opinion, the changes suggested:- to add “…where possible…” and to delete the reference to the public interest would not improve the Plan. The phrase “where possible” is very vague and, in any event, in the control of mineral development, would be subsumed under any other material considerations.

2.3 However, the use of the final phrase in objective (iv) “… other than where it has been demonstrated that the proposed development is in the public interest” appears to have been derived from MPG1 where there are then references to PPGs 7 and 9, making it clear that the public interest issue is raised only in relation to major development proposals in nationally designated areas (PPS 7 para 22) and SPAs and SACs (PPG 9 Annex C). Therefore, in my view, the Plan has distorted the hierarchy of considerations by setting a test as high or higher for non designated sites compared to designated sites and for any development whatever the magnitude. In order to avoid confusion and to be consistent with government advice, the Plan should restate objective (iv) using the words of MPG1 paragraph 35 (v), substituting (See PPS 7 para 22 and PPG 9 Annex C) for the bracketed phrase in MPG 1.

2.4 I do not consider that the modification sought by the division of objectives (ii) and (iv) would be a clear improvement. The objectives comprise a set of principles and the control of development will be guided by the policies which follow. I agree that it would be preferable to avoid adverse impacts or, if that is not possible, to minimise them. But it would not necessarily be possible to insist on no net loss in every case for each environmental constraint.

3


2.5 I agree that the addition of “recycling of wastes” as proposed in Pre Inquiry Change (PIC) 1 would conform with government policies to encourage waste reduction and shall recommend it as a modification.

Recommendation

2.6 I recommend that the Plan is modified by (i) PIC 1 and (ii) the deletion of objective (iv) and the substitution of para 35(v) of MPG1 amended as outlined above.

********************

POLICY M2.1a SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

Policy M2.1a Revision R12

Subsequent Objection Nos. 2005 Mr. R. G. Bows, 2323 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Issues:- Whether to include “where appropriate” in the policy; whether the degree of protection to designated and non designated national sites is correctly expressed.

Conclusions

2.7 Policy M2.1A refers to sustainable development objectives for mineral development being addressed where appropriate. Where minerals development proposals are made, they may not necessarily be for extraction or operations which justify consideration under all the sustainable development objectives. Perhaps only one of the series would be relevant. I expect that any new mineral extraction would have to comply with the objectives in Policy 2.1. However, I do not consider that all the objectives would be necessarily material for all mineral development proposals. Therefore, I do not accept that the words “where appropriate” should be deleted. Nevertheless, for clarity, I accept that the Plan should be modified by Further Proposed Change (FPC 13).

2.8 I have dealt with the public interest point and the hierarchy of protection above. The inclusion of a reference to mitigation measures would be superfluous given that such measures are dealt with in the appropriate policies in subsequent chapters of the Plan.

Recommendation

2.9 I recommend no modification to the Plan other than those outlined in para 2.6 above and FPC 13.

********************

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL: Para 2.6


4


Issue:- The degree to which there should be reference to the Sustainablity Appraisal.

Conclusions

2.10The plan has been amended by the inclusion of paragraph 2.6a which describes in slightly greater detail the structure of the Sustainability Appraisal. In my opinion, taking into account the need for brevity, there is no need for a fuller account. Therefore, I consider that the aim of the objection is satisfied.

Recommendation


********************

AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND (ALSF) Paras 2.15 – 2 .16 Revision R16

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2123 English Heritage, 2136 GOEM, 2207 Miss. E. M. Mackie

Issues:- The accuracy of the reflection of the current arrangements for the ALSF; whether to add references to the historic environment.

Conclusions

2.12 Paragraph 2.15 of the Plan makes it clear that the environmental impacts to which reference is made are only examples and are not meant to be an exhaustive list. Therefore, although there may be an impact on the historic environment depending on the particular case, for reasons of brevity, I do not consider that it is necessary to add a reference to the historic environment to paragraph 2.15.

2.13 The Council has proposed to change the Plan (PIC2, PIC3, PIC4) in order to accommodate the objections which seek to improve the accuracy of references to the current arranagements. I agree the changes would improve the Plan’s accuracy and so shall recommend them.

Recommendation

2.14 I recommend that the Plan be modified by Pre Inquiry Changes PIC2, PIC3 and PIC4.

********************

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

GENERAL

Objection No. 646 CPRE

5


Issue:- Whether Policies M6.3 and M7.2 should apply to all minerals.

Conclusions

3.1 Applying these polices to all minerals would not be practicable because landbanks would be necessary in order to implement them. Such policies have not been included in the Plan and, moreover, it is not government advice to provide for landbanks for minerals other than aggregates. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

INTRODUCTION: Para 3.1

Objection No’s. 647 CPRE, 1594 SQUAT


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2017 CPRE

Issues: - Whether the description of the consequences of mineral extraction in para 1 conveys the right balance between environmental harm and possible benefits; the financial effects of mineral working on residents; whether the loss of mature landscape features is irrecoverable.

Conclusions

3.3 In my opinion, paragraph 3.1 strikes the right balance, recognising that mineral extraction is essentially a destructive process but which has occasional environmental benefits, mostly where restoration is concerned. I do not consider that the Plan implies that extraction can be justified by environmental benefits.

3.4 I acknowledge that the Plan does not refer to any financial effects there might be on residents, such as reductions in property values, or indeed whether there would be any increases which might occur due to lorry re-routing. As PPG1 (para 64) explains, and as repeated by the Council in its response, “the planning system does not exist to protect the private interest of one person against the activities of another…” The financial losses or gains caused by a development would not normally be a material consideration. Therefore it would not be appropriate nor consistent with government guidance to refer to financial impacts on residents in the Plan.

3.5 The loss of mature landscape or ecosystems may be literally impossible to restore in their original state. Yet I consider that the Plan strikes the appropriate balance when it states that “…this (reclamation) rarely compensates for the loss of features …”. I believe that this is an accurate comment.

6


Recommendation


********************

INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS: Para 3.5



Subsequent Objection No’s 2018 CPRE

Issue:- Whether the paragraph accurately reflects national policy on need for minerals

Conclusions

3.7 Both objections relate to how the need for minerals may be expressed in the paragraph which supports Policy M3.1. MPG1 (para 40) states that need for a proposed development may not have to be demonstrated in all cases. The Council had, at first, proposed a Pre Inquiry Change (PIC 5) which would clarify a phrase within the paragraph. The Further Proposed Change (FPC 15), which is now proposed to improve the accuracy of the Plan in relation to need, incorporates PIC 5. both changes would enable the Plan to be consistent with MPG1 and so I shall recommend FPC 15 as a modification.

Recommendation

3.8 I recommend that the Plan be modified by FPC 15.

********************

POLICY M3.1


Issue:- Whether to expand the list of information required to support a planning application.

Conclusions

3.9 Amendments are suggested to three items in the list which extends from (a) to (x). For item (c), additional details are sought relating to estimates of other minerals and spoil to be disposed of on site and the annual output of the minerals from the site and displaced materials. In my opinion, the additional items sought would be included within others on the list such as (b), (f), (g) and (j). Therefore, I have no doubt that the information which is being sought would be forthcoming under one of the sub headings.

7


3.10 Item (e), need for the mineral, would necessitate knowledge of its uses. The Plan may well identify the current end uses, but they may change and they may not necessarily relate to the specific operation which is the subject of the operation. Nevertheless, I consider that it is not necessary to expand the item with a reference to end uses. Any consideration of need would automatically involve the uses for which the mineral is needed. Different uses would have different needs.

3.11 An addition to item (n) is sought to include a reference to the result of a dust assessment. However, the item is broader than just dust. For example, it would also include noise. Therefore, I consider that the item should remain general, without specifying a particular agent of pollution.

Recommendation


********************

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS: POLICY M3.2

Objection No. 1633 Railtrack Property

Issue:- Whether the policy should include reference to modes of transport.

Conclusions

3.13 I agree that planning obligations can be used to control modes of transport as well as other issues, but I agree with the Council that it is not necessary to describe in detail what the various possibilities are. Alternative modes of transport such as rail are dealt with in PolicyM3.15. The use of an obligation to secure such means of transport would conform with the phrase “… and securing sustainable development objectives …” which has been introduced as Revision R20.

Recommendation


********************

VISUAL INTRUSION: POLICY M3.3 and paras 3.19 and 3.21

Objection No’s. 589, 591-2 Miss. E. M. Mackie, 650, 652 CPRE

Issue:- Whether to give added recognition to light pollution issues.

Conclusions

3.15 I agree with the objections that light pollution can be significantly intrusive, especially in the countryside where other light sources may be minimal. Because

8


mineral workings are frequently in open countryside, they may be a cause of light pollution, if activities extend beyond the normal daytime operational hours. The Council has recognised this to a limited extent by adding lighting as an example of an alien feature (Revision R22) in parapraph 3.15. The Council has also proposed a further change (FPC 9) which would insert “structures” into the policy. The policy would then include the consideration of lighting rigs. However, in my opinion, these additions are insufficient and I consider that there should be a specific reference in the policy to the need to minimise impact from light. Therefore, I shall suggest a new phrase at the end of the policy as described below.

3.16 Other subsequent objections seek additions to the reasoned justification at paragraphs 3.19 and 3.21. I see no reason to add light pollution to paragraph 3.19 as, in my opinion, light pollution is not a main environmental impact compared to traffic or noise. Similarly, paragraph 3.21 is based on MPG11 and neither that nor draft MPS 2 include references to light pollution. Therefore, I do not accept that the Plan should be modified further as a result of the objections.

Recommendation

3.17 I recommend that the Plan is modified by (i) FPC 9 and (ii) the inclusion of: “In addition, measures should be taken by sympathetic design and/or screening to avoid unacceptable light intrusion caused by extraneous light from the development.” at the end of Policy M3.3.

********************

HOW NOISE IS MEASURED: PANEL 3.1 Revision R24

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2108 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2115 Mr. H. G. Oates, 2296 SQUAT

Issues:- Whether the Plan properly reflects government guidance on noise measurements.

Conclusions

3.18 It is apparent that the function of Panel 3.1 is to explain how noise is measured, rather than explain the policy on noise. Therefore, I do not accept that the suggestions by objectors about the revisions to the Panel and I agree with the Council that the definition of “free field” should be included (FPC 16). The result would be that the Panel would become exclusively concerned with how noise is measured, which would improve the clarity of the Plan.

3.19 The substance of the objections are that noise limits, which would then be within the reasoned justification should be altered. An objection has stated that the text should revert to the original pre Revision R24 version. However, as the Council comments, the Revised Consultation Draft of MPS 2 provides the most up to date advice which supersedes the Revision. The Council has proposed a further change to take this into account (FPC 16). However, I note that Draft MPS2 now advises a 55

9


dB(A) LAeq 1h (free field) limit in circumstances where an earlier draft of government advice was 42 dB(A) LAeq 1h (free field).

3.20 The consequence of this change is that there could be situations where the noise impact of minerals development could be allowed by substantially more than the 10dB(A) beyond which point complaints become likely. If MPS 2 advice remains as currently drafted, I would be content with the thrust of FPC 16, subject to the inclusion of the duration as described in Draft MPS 2. However, if the advice changes, the Council should adopt the most up to date noise limits suggested.

3.21 The Plan does not mention the noise limits which apply to temporary operations as described in paragraph 2.20 of Revised Draft MPS 2. I shall recommend that the FPC should incorporate this in a summarised form in order to avoid the misleading impression that noise limits for temporary operations need only be those described for the more permanent activities. Accordingly, I do not support the objections made about noise because they do not reflect the emerging government advice in Draft MPS 2 and I have no convincing reason to depart from such advice, especially as, in my opinion, standards should be applied consistently across planning authorities with no one location able to insist on a less, or allow a more, noisy environment.

Recommendation

3.22 I recommend that the Plan be modified by FPC 16 with the addition of the following sentence:- “Increased temporary day time noise limits of up to 67dB(A) LAeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified noise – sensitive properties should be considered for activities such as soil stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of road construction and maintence.” and the inclusion of “1h” for the noise limits specified in FPC 16.

********************

POLICY M3.5 NOISE


Issue:- Appropriateness of a noise condition derived from EC Directive 2000/14/EC.

Conclusions

3.23 I consider that the inclusion of a further control based on the SI which has been derived from the EC Directive would be unnecessary. There is already sufficient scope within the policy as drafted to seek to control noise impacts which the mineral planning authority would deem to be unacceptable and I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

10


POLICY M3.6 BLASTING

Objection No. 362 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2023 CPRE

Issues:- The accuracy of the reference to air overpressure; the references to effects on wildlife.

Conclusions

3.25 The Council has accepted that the reference to air overpressure was not correct and altered the Plan by Revision 26, with which I agree because it improves the Plan’s accuracy. However the Plan needs no further modification because the Plan has already been formally publicised in its revised form.

3.26 The second objection concerns the Revision to paragraph 3.29 and I consider that the Plan needs no further modification because, in my opinion, an impact on wildlife habitats would also imply an impact on the wildlife itself.

Recommendation


********************

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MINERAL WORKINGS ON THE SURFACE WATER REGIME: Para 3.37

Objection No. 1609 Environment Agency

Issue:- The accuracy of the reference to MPG 11 (Draft MPS 2).

Conclusions

3.28 The paragraph summarises points from Draft MPG 11 (now Draft MPS 2). Although I agree with the point made in the objection, this part of the Plan is not the place to include it. Indeed flooding is dealt with in paragraphs 3.40 and 3.41. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M3.8 WATER ENVIRONMENT

11


Objection No. 1731 Mr. R. G. Bows


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2001 NFU, 2124 English Heritage



Issues:- Insufficient emphasis given to dewatering; incorrect reference to agriculture in para 3.36; add references to historic interest and historic landscapes to para 3.36.

Conclusions

3.30 I recognise the importance of dewatering and so agree with the sentiments expressed in the objection. However, in my view, the impact of dewatering is already taken into account in the policy where it states that planning permission for mineral development will only be granted where: “… (b) groundwater levels, where critical, are not affected…unless engineering measures and/or operational management systems can adequately mitigate such risks.” The information in support of an application would also supply data necessary for assessing the likelihood and magnitude of any effects of dewatering. Nevertheless, in my opinion, Policy M3.8 is quite sufficient to form the basis for a reason for refusal, or the imposition of planning conditions, if it is concluded by the mineral planning authority that groundwater levels would be affected to the extent that dewatering would occur and which could have a harmful effect on neighbouring property.

3.31 It would not be appropriate for the Council to assume responsibility for geological and hydrogeological studies supporting a planning application. These matters would be the responsibility of the applicant. Subsequent monitoring would also be the responsibility of the applicant, but both the Council as planning authority and the Environment Agency as regulator could choose to carry out independent surveys at various times on a case by case basis either to verify or monitor findings. However, I do not consider that it would appropriate to include a policy or text within the reasoned justification to impose such a requirement on the Council. It is primarily a matter for the particular mineral operator at a specific site. Therefore, I do not support the objection and shall not recommend a new Policy M3.8a nor any modification to the reasoned justification.

3.32 The revision to paragraph 3.36 includes a reference to intensive agriculture as being a contributor to the degradation of rivers, lakes, ponds and flood meadows. Although the objection states that many farmers are now replacing agricultural land with scrub, meadows, etc, I agree with the Council that much of the damage caused by the past remains and that this reference in the Plan is accurate and balanced. Therefore, I do not accept that the Plan should be modified.

3.33 I also agree with the Council that a suggested addition of “and are of historic interest” to the end of the first sentence of paragraph 3.36 would not be accurate because some features are of relatively modern construction. Similarly, whereas

12


landscapes may well be restored to resemble former landforms, I do not accept that it would improve the accuracy of the Plan if it were to state that it would be possible to recreate historic landscapes.

Recommendation

3.34 I recommend that the Plan is not modified.

********************

POLICY M3.9 FLOOD DEFENCES

Objection No. 363 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 1621 Mr Fell

Issue:- Effect on flood defences of mineral workings.

Conclusions

3.35 The Council has partly accepted the aim of the objection by a revision to paragraph 3.40 of the reasoned justification and I agree that the policy should not be modified. It would be very unusual to allow mineral working on the basis that flood storage or drainage could be improved. In any event, such a benefit would normally be the outcome of reclamation following the completion of extraction. Therefore, I do not support the objection. However, the policy could be expressed in more specific terms in order to prevent mineral working where there would be unacceptable impact on flood flows and flood storage capacity. Therefore, I shall recommend that the Plan be modified by Further Proposed Change (FPC) 18.

Recommendation

3.36 I recommend that the Plan is modified by FPC 18.

********************

POLICY M3.10 ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT


Issue:- The clarity of the Policy.

Conclusions

3.37 The Council has agreed with the substance of the objection and has proposed a further change (FPC 17) to insert “only” within the policy. I also agree that the change would improve the policy by making it slightly stronger and clearer. I consider that the additional words sought by the objection would not help the expression or the strength of the policy.

Recommendation

13



********************

POLICY M3.14 VEHICLE ROUTEING & Paras 3.53 – 3.54

Objection No’s. 364 – 6 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Issues:- Inconsistencies between the reasoned justification and Policy M3.14.

Conclusions

3.39 The Council has already revised the Plan in order to accommodate these objections which have been published as Revision R33 and so there is no need to further modify it.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M3.15 BULK TRANSPORT OF MINERALS

Objection No’s. 367 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 685 Tarmac Central Ltd, 939 Rolandon Securities Ltd


Subsequent Objection No. 2297 SQUAT

Issues:- The emphasis on bulk transport using the River Trent.

Conclusions

3.41 The Council accepted that the reasoned justification could be amended to add an emphasis on bulk transport using the River Trent and revised the Plan with Revision R 34 which has attracted one subsequent objection. This suggests that it should be made a requirement that facilities such as wharves are constructed, where their availability would then mean that water transport was a viable operational alternative to road transport. In my view, it would be unreasonable to include the provision of wharves or other bulk movement facilities as a requirement because this could then lead to the possibility of otherwise acceptable locations for mineral extraction being denied permission if such provision was not viable. Therefore, I shall support the Revision as published and not recommend any modification to it.

3.42 I note the Council’s interpretation of “viable” in Policy M3.15, with which I would agree, I have no further comment and do not recommend any modification to the Plan. In my opinion, the Plan takes a balanced attitude to minimising road transport and is fully consistent with MPG1 para 64 and PPG 13 para 47. An

14


objection seeks a presumption in favour of barge transportation. However, in my opinion, such a presumption would be unrealistic. If access to navigable water is possible, government policies already favour transport of minerals by water and such considerations should feature in any Environmental Statement for the development of a major pit or quarry. The means of transport would be one of the factors which would be assessed in the determination of the planning application and it would be placed alongside the other material considerations.

Recommendation


********************

GREEN BELT: Para 3.57 Revision R35

Subsequent Objection No. 2328 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Issue:- The accuracy of references to Green Belt policy.

Conclusions

3.44 Paragraph 3.58 of the Plan is an extremely abbreviated summary of the application of the policies which would apply to proposals in the Green Belt for industrial development associated with mineral extraction. The objection refers to paragraph 3.12 of PPG2, but that deals with mining operations and other development, rather then the erection of buildings, albeit to house industrial activities associated with mineral extraction. In my opinion, such industrial development in the Green Belt is likely to be unacceptable, unless there are very special circumstances, as expressed in paragraph 3.2 of PPG2. Those circumstances may well include the need to avoid hauling raw material between the site of the mineral extraction and the processing works. Nevertheless, I do not dissent from the view that industrial development at mineral extraction sites in the Green Belt would be unlikely to be acceptable. However, to reflect PPG2 I shall recommend that the “very special circumstances” phrase should be added to the end of the sentence.

Recommendation

3.45 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the addition of “unless, if the development is judged to be inappropriate, there are very special circumstances, which would justify approving it” at the end of the paragraph 3.58.

********************

BIODIVERSITY Para 3.68


Issues- The effect of mineral working on wildlife.

15


Conclusions

3.46 The objection seeks recognition that mineral extraction inevitably harms wildlife. However, I agree with the Council that, whereas this may be literally true, as would virtually every form of operational development in urban areas as well as countryside, the existing words in the Plan, “Whilst mineral development can harm wildlife…” is a more balanced statement. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M3.17 BIODIVERSITY

Objection No. 419 QPA,

Policy M3.17 Revision R38

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2031 CPRE, 2278 English Nature, 2311 NWT

Issues:- Whether the policy is too broad and provides a loophole.

Conclusions

3.48 The Council states that the priority habitats in Table 1 are based on the published Local Biodiversity Action Plan, and that the majority of the landscape in the county is predominantly arable. In my opinion, the policy appears generally sound and relates well to the subject area. The Table at 3.2 is a different subject and the designations in that table are dealt with in later policies of the Plan. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

3.49 The insertion of “where practical” into the policy provides the appropriate flexibility and balance in the consideration of the impact of mineral development on features identified in the UK or county BAP. Therefore, I do not support the objections seeking deletion of the phrase, although it seems to me that the phrase should be “where practicable”. I leave the correct use of English to the Council to determine.

Recommendation


********************

TABLE 3.2 NATURE CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS

Objection No. 521 NWT

16


Issue:- The status of SINCs.

Conclusions

3.51 An objection suggested that it should be recognised that some SINCs may be of SSSI quality, even though they are not designated as such. The Council explained that the reason for Table 3.2 is to set out in a clear and succinct style the hierarchy of designated sites in the county and I agree with their comments. Moreover, if the table were to be modified as the objection seeks, there would be an implication that non statutory SINCS could be more important than the statutory Local Nature Reserves. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M3.19 SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (SSSIs)

Objection No. 780 English Nature


Subsequent Objection No. 2280 English Nature

Issue:- The degree of protection afforded to SSSIs.

Conclusions

3.53 The objection seeks a recognition that harm to an SSSI may arise from direct or indirect effects. I agree mostly with the Council that “destroy or detrimentally affect...” might amount to the same thing, but I consider that the policy would be clearer were it to use the phrase suggested in the objection.

3.54 The inclusion of the phrase “the development is in the national interest” is not a reflection of advice in PPG9 and I also believe that the use of “national interest” adds ambiguity. The development must clearly be of considerable importance in order to outweigh the national importance of SSSIs and the essential criterion is at (b) in the policy. Therefore, I agree with this point made in the objection. However, I agree with the Council that the final sentence in the policy would already take into account the use of conditions or obligations where appropriate. The point made about a rigorous examination is procedure for assessment rather than land use policy and so should not be included in the text of the policy. Therefore, I support some of the points made in the objection and shall suggest a reworded policy below.

3.55 For the same reasons, I agree with the objection seeking the deletion of “national” from paragraph 3.74. The national considerations would come into play in the assessment and to make national need a pre-condition for permission would be too prescriptive in my opinion, and would be more severe than intended by PPG9.

17


Recommendation

3.56 I recommend that the Plan is modified (i) by the substitution of the following for Policy M3.19 “Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would have an adverse effect, directly or indirectly, on the special interest of an SSSI or a candidate SSSI unless the reasons for the development outweigh the nature conservation considerations. The assessment of any adverse impact will take account of the scope for mitigation and/or compensatory measures to replace the loss.” and (ii) by the deletion of “national” from paragraph 3.74.

********************

POLICY M3.20 LOCAL NATURE RESERVES

Objection No’s 369 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 413 QPA,

Revision R51 REGIONAL AND LOCAL DESIGNATED SITES

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2183 RSPB, 2313 NWT

Issues:- The status accorded to Regional and Local Designated Sites; the need to retain reference to compensatory measures; the retention of the reference to candidate SINCs in the policy.

Conclusions

3.57 The Council has accepted that the policy incorrectly gives Local designated sites national status and, quite correctly, revised the Plan with Revision R51. However, a subsequent objection raised the need to retain the reference to compensatory measures and the Council also has agreed by suggesting the introduction of the phrase “compensate against” in the revised policy as PIC 6. I also agree that PIC 6 would improve the accuracy of the Plan in its reflection of national advice in PPG9 and shall recommend it. In my view, this would meet the aims of the objection.

3.58 I do not accept that candidate SINCs should be included in the policy. I note the comparisons made with candidate SACs, SPAs, etc, which are due the protection afforded to them as though they were promoted to the designated list. However, I would assume that there is a significant difference in the possible numbers of sites involved as well as their relative importance when comparing sites which are of national or international importance and SINCs which are not. The submissions indicate that there is a panel to assess candidate SINCs, but I have no information on whether those with an interest in the land have a right of objection to the designation. Therefore, I do not consider that it is appropriate to assume that sites should be able to fall within the policy merely due to being possible SINCs. The speed of assessment is a matter for the particular procedures by which a candidate site is processed. I note the comments about EIA and the degree of accuracy of the surveys but I would hope that SINCs arise from objective assessments of quality and scarcity rather than as a means of overcoming a possible threat.

18


Recommendation

3.59 I recommend that the Plan is modified by PIC 6.

********************

POLICY M3.22 PROTECTED SPECIES

Objection No’s 370 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 556 NWT

Revision R 53

Subsequent Objection No. 2314 NWT

Issue:- The long term protection of affected species.

Conclusions

3.60 Objection 370 supports the Plan in its Revised state and I have no further comments to make.

3.61 The reference to securing the protection of the relevant species beyond the normal after care period of 5 years has been made in the reasoned justification and I consider that there is no need to develop it further in the policy. The policy already refers to the protection and conservation of species by condition and planning obligation and so to that extent the objection has already been catered for. In the interests of brevity, I see no good reason to make the policy longer.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M3.23 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER


Revision R 54

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2258 Viridor Waste Management, 2330 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Issues:- Whether to introduce more criteria into the policy; whether the policy should identify opportunities for landscape enhancement.

Conclusions

19


3.63 The policy sets out the overall tests which have to be passed in order for mineral development to be acceptable from the landscape character point of view. In my opinion, the inclusion of criteria in addition to those in the test would be superfluous, particularly as the Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines are referred to in the reasoned justification. The Guidelines contain advice on how to carry out a landscape character assessment. I consider that the policy need not describe the sort of detail which the objections seek, especially in the interest of brevity. Therefore, I do not support the objections.

3.64 The policy includes a reference to the need for operators to demonstrate opportunities for landscape enhancement. I agree with the Council that mineral extraction can enable some landscape improvement to be undertaken and it may be part of the package to overcome what would otherwise cause harm. However, I agree with the objection that it should not be a requirement for every proposal to identify opportunities for landscape enhancement. The basic test should be not to cause harm to the landscape character. If harm is to be caused, the policy sets out the reasons how that harm can be outweighed, ie, overriding public interest or by the reduction of harm to an acceptable level by ameliorating measures. Improvements to landscape can be sought, but should not be imposed if they go beyond what is necessary to overcome the harm which the development would cause. In other words, in my opinion, it is not reasonable to seek to put back more than was there in the first place.

3.65 I also agree with the objection that it would not be normal to seek the long term management of the site via a policy in the plan. It may be that, depending on the particular case, there is a need to seek management beyond the 5 year after care period, but each such case should be negotiated on its own merits when planning applications are made. Therefore, I support the objection and shall recommend that the plan be modified mostly in the way suggested.

Recommendation

3.66 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the substitution for Policy M3.23 of the following: “Operators must demonstrate that landscape character and local distinctiveness are fully taken into consideration within development proposals. Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which is likely to adversely impact upon the character and distinctiveness of the landscape unless there are reasons of overriding public interest or where ameliorative measures can reduce the impact to an acceptable level.”

********************

POLICY M3.24 MATURE LANDSCAPE AREAS

Objection No’s. 43 NFU, 503 RMC Aggregates UK Ltd

Issue:- Whether the policy is necessary, especially when set alongside Policy M3.23.

Conclusions

20


3.67 I agree with one objection to a limited extent, in that there is a sense of duplication between Policies M3.23 and M3.24. Nevertheless, the MLAs are normally a distinctive landscape type which are relatively unspoilt. Therefore, because they are of a higher quality and limited in extent, I consider that they are worthy of the extra level of protection. PPS7 acknowledges that there are areas of landscape outside those which are nationally designated that are particularly highly valued locally (para 24) and recommends that criteria based policies should be used for protecting them. However, before any criteria based policies can be developed in the county, there needs to be further work on countryside character appraisal. Accordingly, I agree with the Council’s assessment and do not support either of the objections, although when the further work is complete, one would expect the policy to be reconsidered as part of any review of the Plan (para 25 PPS7).

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M3.25 ARCHAEOLOGY

Objection No. 504 RMC Aggregates UK Ltd

Revision R58

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2262 RMC Aggregates UK Ltd, 2288 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2331 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Issues:- Whether overriding/public interest should be included in the policy,

Conclusions

3.69 The Council has accepted that in order to provide clearer guidance for assessing archaeological remains of less than national importance and to be more compatible with PPG16, the policy should be changed as described in PIC 7. I agree with the change for the reasons which the Council gives and shall recommend it as a modification. In my view, this would satisfy the aims of 3 objections.

3.70 An objection to R58 wished to see the retention of the requirement to prove overriding need. However, this measure is too strict for remains of less than national importance and in order to conform with advice in PPG16, I shall not support the objection and shall recommend PIC 7.

Recommendation

3.71 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the inclusion of PIC 7.

********************

POLICY M3.27 PUBLIC ACCESS

21


Objection No’s. 505 RMC Aggregates UK Ltd

Issue:- The interest and quality of replacement rights of way.

Conclusions

3.72 I agree with the overall aim of the Council that when rights of way (footpaths and bridleways) are to be disrupted, there should be no loss of quality or interest. Nevertheless, some diversions are temporary and may revert to their original route relatively quickly. Others may also be temporary but only revert to the original route after many years of quarrying and restoration. Some diversions may be permanent, such as where the land over which the right of way passes becomes a lake.

3.73 In my opinion, the policy as drafted is too restrictive, particularly as rights of way in the countryside frequently traverse areas which may be otherwise suitable for mineral extraction. Therefore, I support the objection and shall recommend a reworded policy below.

Recommendation

3.74 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the deletion of Policy M3.27 and the substitution of “Where planning permission is granted for minerals development which would temporarily or permanently disrupt a public right of way, an alternative route should be chosen which aims to offer equivalent interest and quality, having regard to the length of time during which disruption would take place.”

********************

POLICY M3.28 CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Objection No’s. 506 RMC Aggregates UK Ltd, 1592 SQUAT

Issues:- Whether to have a policy in principle and its application within allocated areas.

Conclusions

3.75 Cumulative impact can be caused either by several mineral operations being carried out at the same time in the same general area, or by mineral operations following one after another in the same location. It could appear unreasonable to penalise an intending operator due to the impact of other operations not under his control, which have either been permitted in the past or are currently operating under planning conditions imposed by the planning authority and which have made that operation acceptable. Moreover, to a certain extent, operations within the same area are to be expected if the extent of the economically workable deposit is restricted.

3.76 However, in relation to coal, MPG3 para 18 states that some areas have been subjected to successive opencast developments over a number of years and the

22


policies should make clear that, where appropriate, the cumulative impact of the proposed opencast development on the community and environment should be taken into account. In my experience, most opencast coal operations have a far greater environmental impact than sand and gravel operations, perhaps due to a more intensive method of working, albeit over a shorter timescale. Accordingly, the cumulative impact of successive workings is more relevant to opencast coal than most aggregates operations, particularly sand and gravel. Nevertheless, the principle is sound and so I accept that cumulative effects of continuous and uncoordinated mineral working, which can arise with successive operations or an intense area of simultaneous operations, could have an unacceptable adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, I do not support the objection which seeks the deletion of the policy.

3.77 So far as allocated areas are concerned, the likelihood is that any operation within them would have phased working and restoration and so would have far less of an impact than a series of uncoordinated operations under more than one operator, whether in a sequence or at the same time over a limited area. Accordingly, I do not believe that cumulative impact would be an issue within a particular allocation. Moreover, the Council states that it took cumulative demand into account when choosing which allocations should be selected from those which were assessed.

Recommendation


********************

CHAPTER 4: RECLAMATION

POLICY M4.4 LANDSCAPE TREATMENT


Issue:- Ambiguity of criterion (c) and relocation and rewording of criterion (e).

Conclusions

4.1 The Council has agreed with the objection and has clarified criterion (c) with Revision R 66 and has changed Policy 4.3 as also sought in the objection by Revision R 63. Therefore, I consider that the aims of the objection have been met in the Revisions and no further action needs to be taken.

Recommendation

4.2 I recommend no further modification to the Plan

******************** Para 4.9


23


Issue:- Clarification of the need for temporary screening.

Conclusions

4.3 It is suggested in the objection that the paragraph implies that temporary structures for visual screening of the operational states of the mineral working can be left as a final landform. However, I agree with the Council that whilst temporary screening measures may be necessary, certain works could form part of the final landform, subject to compatibility. Indeed, there would be advantages with such design because any planting used for both screening during operational stages and then as part of the final landform would mature sooner and so make a more effective contribution at an earlier date. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M4.5 RECLAMATION WITH FILL LONG TERM SCHEMES

Objection No. 500 Viridor Waste Management

Revision R 69

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2194 HJ Banks, 2332 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 2342 Viridor Waste Management

Issue:- Policy is the domain of the Waste Local Plan and should be deleted; the future role of landfill; reference to commercial waste and a new policy on PFA disposal.

Conclusions

4.5 An objection seeks the deletion of the policy although it is evident that if a mineral extraction operation includes waste disposal as part of reclamation, the proposal would be determined according to the development plan, which would include both the Minerals Local Plan, when adopted, and the adopted Waste Local Plan. I consider that it is entirely appropriate that a proposal which includes long term domestic and/or industrial landfill should include satisfactory evidence that the waste would be available in the categories and quantities assumed, and that it is not practicable to re-use or recycle the waste. It is reasonable and helpful to intending developers and others with an interest in the proposal that such guidance is given in a policy such as M4.5.

4.6 The Waste Local Plan indicates the need to find suitable disposal sites (para 10.18) and the need to observe the proximity principle. The Waste Local Plan also states that there should be a recognised need for additional disposal capacity. However, the references in the policy to the assessment of need beyond the Waste Local Plan period seems unnecessarily complicated. The Council accepts that the

24


circumstances where the policy would be applicable are likely to be relatively rare. I consider that if an application is received which includes the long term importation of waste, it could be assessed quite adequately under the Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan criteria, with any assessment of need for waste for fill to be based on the circumstances of the time, which would include possible deprivation of reclamation material at other permitted sites. The Waste Local Plan may have fallen out of date when such a mineral proposal is considered, but the demand or need for waste disposal landfill capacity will not have disappeared. So the reclamation by waste element is judged in the same way as other waste disposal schemes, without any prior mineral extraction.

4.7 Therefore, I am in favour of the policy but without the Revision R 69. To that extent, I support the objection. I note the Further Proposed Change (FPC) 11, which would remove some ambiguity from the policy and will support it.

4.8 Seeing as the three remaining objections are to Revision R 69 and I shall recommend deleting the revision, the aims of the objections have been met by the deletion and the policy has reverted to essentially what it was prior to the revision.

Recommendation

4.9 I recommend the modification of the Plan by FPC 11, subject to the deletion of the phrase introduced by R69.

********************

Para 4.14 Revision R70 RECLAMATION WITH FILL

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2156 Selston PC, 2158 Mr. T. Robinson, 2159 Selston Area Residents Association, 2160 Mrs G. Robinson, 2161 Mrs. A Swain

Issues:- Each case should be judged on its own merits.

Conclusions

4.10 In my opinion, the phrase introduced into the Plan by Revision R70 should not normally inhibit a flexible approach. In principle, I consider that it is good practice not to create a situation whereby permitted waste disposal schemes have delayed completion due to an excess of provision. Nevertheless, there may be occasions where a new reclamation scheme does slightly affect an established scheme by depriving it of covering or screening material and, in the longer term, the loss or delay is preferable because of the wider need for the mineral. It is a question of balance. I shall not recommend the deletion of R70, subject to the inclusion of the phrase “…significantly affect…” in order to ensure that this section of the Plan is not interpreted too rigidly.

Recommendation

25


4.11 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the inclusion of the word “significantly” before “…affect…” in R70.

********************

POLICY M4.6 RECLAMATION WITH INERT FILL – SMALL SCHEMES


Issue:- The clarity and usefulness of the policy.

Conclusions

4.12 I acknowledge that the policy defines neither “small schemes” nor “small quantities” and that the Waste Local Plan policies will also be relevant to a case involving the deposit of inert fill. However, I consider that the guidance would assist in the control of development where reclamation on a small scale is proposed and so I do not support the objection and shall not recommend the deletion of the policy.

Recommendation


********************

Para 4.22 Revision R71 RECLAMATION TO WATER

Subsequent Objection No. 2111 Burton Joyce Residents Association

Issue:- Whether there should be a reference to OnTrent in the Plan.

Conclusions

4.14 I do not consider that the reference to OnTrent is inappropriate in the Plan. The Council has endorsed the vision statement of the OnTrent initiative. OnTrent appears to be a wide ranging organisation which embraces a variety of interests and which is consistent with the aims of Policy 44 of RPG8.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M4.7 INTERIM RECLAMATION MEASURES

Objection No. 418 QPA

Issue:- Whether to use “planning permission” or “proposal”.

26


Conclusions

4.16 The Council has agreed with the objection and proposed Revision R72 which has been incorporated into the Plan. Therefore, there is no issue between the objector and the Council and I have no further comment to make.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M4.8 ALTERNATIVE RECLAMATION SCHEMES

Objection No. 507 RMC Aggregates UK Ltd

Issue:- Whether the policy is superfluous and too short term in outlook.

Conclusions

4.18 Paragraph 4.25 of the Plan states that the Council normally attaches conditions requiring alternative reclamation if a site is closed for longer than 6 months. Therefore, I do not consider there is a sound reason to include that procedure in a policy when it is already practiced by the Council. If original reclamation conditions become impractical to implement, the onus should be on the operator to seek to apply for a variation to the scheme, otherwise incurring the risk of enforcement action to secure the scheme which was originally provided for by the earlier set of planning conditions. Accordingly, I agree with the objection. There is not a requirement to include a policy just to impose conditions which should be judged on a case by case basis and without which planning permission for the development would not have been granted in the first place. I shall recommend that the policy is deleted. It is superfluous and unnecessarily increases the length of the Plan.

Recommendation

4.19 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the deletion of Policy M4.8

********************

POLICY M4.9 RECLAMATION PROPOSALS FOR EXISTING SITES


Revision R73

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2042 CPRE, 2157 Selston PC, 2242 Miss. E. M. Mackie

Issue:- Whether to include the aim for a more positive use of waste in the policy.

27


Conclusions

4.20 The Council agreed with the objection seeking the deletion of criterion (c) from the policy and so deleted it in Revision R 73. I consider that this met that particular objection. However, other subsequent objections sought the replacement of the criterion. The deleted phrase is “the proposals result in a more positive use of waste compared to alternative options for such waste.” The Council commented that the aim of that part of the policy is already covered by Policy W10.1 of the Waste LP and I agree. Moreover, the policy in the Minerals LP deals with reclamation generally and is not aimed at waste. The Waste LP may have a plan period which expires on 31 December 2004, but it will be part of the development plan until reviewed or replaced. Therefore, I do not support the objections seeking the reinstatement of the policy. I see no reason to cross refer to the Waste Local Plan as, in considering any proposals for minerals extraction or waste disposal, the development plan should be read as a whole.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M4.10 AFTERCARE

Objection No. 480 RSPB

Issue:- The policy should refer to nature conservation.

Conclusions

4.22 I agree with the Council that amenity is normally taken to include nature conservation, for example, in MPG7 and that there is no need to refer to nature conservation separately within the policy. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M4.12 AFTER-USE MANAGEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS

Objection No’s. 528 NWT, 1605 Mr. R. G. Bows

Issue:- Whether to refer to the need for funding for long term monitoring; whether to strengthen the policy.

Conclusions

28


4.24 I agree with the objection that many restoration schemes which involve the recreation of diverse habitats would need longer than the statutory 5 years aftercare period to be established successfully. Both management and monitoring after 5 years may be necessary. Such provisions can only be made through negotiation and cannot be imposed. I agree with the Council that the policy is as “strong” as is reasonably possible. Yet there is no reference to monitoring in the policy and, in my opinion, that can be as important as management in securing and maintaining a successful outcome. Therefore, I shall recommend the addition of monitoring to the policy as described below. I consider that the detail suggested in that particular objection is superfluous. Funding is referred to in paragraph 4.38 and FPC 8, as suggested by the Council, would add ecological monitoring to the relevant sentence. Accordingly, to the extent above, I support the objection, although I agree with the Council that a requirement to seek funding cannot be part of a policy.

4.25 So far as strengthening the policy is concerned, legally binding long term after-use and management agreements cannot be imposed. If a developer refuses to negotiate or fails to come to an agreement, the planning authority may choose to refuse planning permission. However, where they exist, agreements and planning conditions can be enforced where necessary. Therefore, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation

4.26 I recommend that the Plan is modified by (i) the inclusion of FPC 8 and (ii) the inclusion in the policy of “… and monitoring…” between “…long term management” and “provisions…”.

********************

Para 4.62 MINERALS REVIEW


Issue:- Clarification sought of compensation rights in first and third sentences.

Conclusions

4.27 The Council has agreed with the objection and clarified the explanation of the circumstances when a review of minerals permissions may give rise to a liability for compensation in Revision R78. I consider that this meets the aims of the objection and shall not recommend any further modification to the paragraph.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M4.16 MINERALS REVIEW SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

29


Objection No’s. 373 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 416 QPA, 473 UK Coal Mining Ltd

Issue:- discretionary power to impose new conditions; more onerous than MPG14.

Conclusions

4.29 I agree with the general tone of the objection seeking alteration of “will” to “may” in the second sentence. But the discretion is already built into the policy by the preceding phrase “Where appropriate …”. Therefore, I consider that the change suggested would not improve the accuracy of the Plan. There is already a reference to economic viability in paragraph 4.62 of the reasoned justification and I consider that to refer to it again in the policy would be unnecessarily repetitious. The reference to an end date does not cause a conflict with the Environment Act 1995. If the imposition of an end date would affect the economic viability or asset value, compensation may be payable, as stated in the reasoned justification.

4.30 Having read paragraphs 90, 92 and 115 of MPG14, it appears to me that the policy in the Plan falls within the advice given in government guidance. The aims of the conditions as set out in the policy are not more onerous. The objection offers no further evidence of where there might be inconsistencies between the Plan and MPG14 and I see no reason why the policy should be deleted.

Recommendation


********************

CHAPTER 5: MINERAL EXPLORATION

POLICY M5.2 DEEP BOREHOLES IN SENSITIVE AREAS


Issue:- Whether to introduce the phrase “overriding need”.

Conclusions

5.1 The Council comments that deep boreholes would be limited to exploration for coal and oil, for which need is not a factor which can be taken into account. However, the scope to avoid sensitive areas is firmly embedded in the Plan in paragraph 5.18 and, for oil, in Policy M13.1. Therefore, I consider that the concerns expressed in the objection are already met in the Plan and no useful purpose would be served by extending the policy. It may be that an environmentally sensitive area is proposed for deep drilling, but that would be after an exhaustive evaluation which may well involve EIA and where alternatives would have to be fully considered. Therefore, I do not support the objection and shall not recommend any modification to the Plan as a result of it.

Recommendation

30



******************** CHAPTER 6: SAND AND GRAVEL


REVISION R81 FIGURE 6.1 SAND AND GRAVEL PRODUCTION

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2137 GOEM, 2306 Crown Estates

Para 6.26 Revision R83 CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE DEMAND

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2138 GOEM, 2146 Tarmac Central Ltd, 2263 RMC Aggregates, 2334 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

TABLE 6.1 Revision R84

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2335 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Para 6.12 RECLAMATION AND AFTER-USE

Objection No. 486 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd

Paras 6.22 – 6.27 CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE DEMAND

Objection No’s. 603 Miss. E. M. Mackie, 666 CPRE, 688 Tarmac Central Ltd, 1683 Ennstone Plc, 1701 Derbyshire CC, 1704 Derby CC

Paras 6.28 – 6.32 POLICY M6.2 and TABLE 6.2

Objection No’s. 374 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 411 QPA, 485 Aggregate Industries, 508 RMC Aggregates (UK) Ltd, 639 Crown Estates, 667 CPRE, 1647 Latham Farms Ltd, 1682 Ennstone Plc

Para 6.28 Revision R87 FUTURE PROVISION LANDBANKS


Para 6.30 Revision R88 ESTIMATING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS



Subsequent Objection No’s. 2141 GOEM, 2309 Crown Estate

Figure 6.2 Revision R94

31


Subsequent Objection No. 2299 SQUAT

Para 6.38 LIST OF ALLOCATIONS



Subsequent Objection No’s. 2264 RMC Aggregates 2298 SQUAT

TABLE 6.4

Objection No’s. 376 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 691 Tarmac Central Ltd


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2289 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2295 Burton Joyce Residents Association, 2300 SQUAT, 2336 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

GENERAL COMMENTS

6.1 In dealing with objections to the sand and gravel chapter of the Plan, I shall firstly consider the inter-related issues of the general requirements for sand and gravel in Nottinghamshire, the existing permitted reserves and production capacity, meeting the shortfall, the landbank, the proposed allocations and then the sites which objections seek to be included as allocations. The objections above are dealt with in the conclusions below and the recommendations which follow.

General requirements

6.2 The most recent Government advice on aggregates provision was published in June 2003, which provided guidance on supply in England 2001 – 16. The new guidelines were based on the most up to date publicly available information and took account of responses to the public consultation on the draft guidelines issued in August 2002.

6.3 Changes in forecasts have resulted in an overall reduction in provision at national level of 19% compared to the previous advice. The guidelines now assume that recycled and alternative aggregates will account for 23% of national supply compared to the previous estimate of 12%.

6.4 The total national requirement for aggregates for the period 2001 – 16 is 4 billion tonnes, equivalent to 250 million tonnes (mt) pa. For the East Midlands, the total requirement is 783 mt, equivalent to 49 mt pa. The East Midlands Working Party on Aggregates apportioned the regional figure according to the average share each mineral planning authority provided during the preceding 5 years. This resulted in an approved apportionment for Nottinghamshire of 54 mt for the period 2001 – 2016, which is equivalent to 3.375 mt pa; and 4.2 mt of crushed rock, equivalent to 0.263 mt pa.

32


6.5 The 54 mt Nottinghamshire apportionment for sand and gravel includes both alluvial sand and gravel and Sherwood Sandstone. The two types of mineral are treated separately in the Plan and have their own landbanks with the split based on their relative contribution to total sand and gravel production in the county over the last 5 years. This results in a proposed apportionment of 2.65 mt pa for sand and gravel and 0.7 mt pa for Sherwood Sandstone.

6.6 An objection proposed that the provision should be reduced by 0.4 mt pa to 2.25 mt pa to take into account secondary aggregates and windfalls. However, the guidelines and the subsequent apportionment already incorporates the estimates for secondary aggregates and, in my opinion, windfalls can only be considered as such. In any event, I believe that the likelihood of windfalls occurring will decrease as the development plan continues to bear down on proposals which would be contrary to adopted policies and supports measures to prevent unnecessary development in the countryside.

6.7 A further objection sought an increase in the county alluvial sand and gravel apportionment and a corresponding decrease in Sherwood Sandstone. This view is based on the opinion that there is the beginning of a long term trend of rising demand for sand and gravel. This view might be right but, in my opinion, it is derived from information which is not yet necessarily part of a long term change. It is too early to be sure. The review process should be able to assess the degree of change in demand for the different types of sand and gravel.

Existing permitted reserves

6.8 At the start of the plan period, permitted reserves of sand and gravel stood at 28.8 mt. This figure was agreed at the Round Table Session held where those who wished to speak on this section of the Plan participated in a discussion with the Council.

Meeting the shortfall

6.9 Comparison of the requirement for sand and gravel with the permitted reserves shows that there is a shortfall of 24.2 mt. In order to meet the shortfall, the Plan allocates 6 sites which the Plan states contain 20.47 mt. These comprise green field sites Gunthorpe and Sturton le Steeple and extensions at Bleasby (Hoveringham), Rampton, Lound East and Misson (Finningley). However, at the Round Table session, it was agreed that the quantity in the allocated sites contain a further 1.72 mt than indicated in the Plan, with an extra 1.25 mt at Sturton le Steeple and 0.45 mt at Misson (Finningley). Therefore, the amount of sand and gravel in the sites allocated in the Plan is 21.73 mt, 2.48 mt short of what is needed to satisfy the landbank requirements during the period of the Plan, together with 7 years after the Plan period.

The landbank and the plan period

6.10 MPG6 (para 64) states that mineral planning authorities should be able to demonstrate that sufficient resources have been identified or can be identified to ensure that the landbank can be maintained throughout the plan period. There should also be a commitment included in the plan to ensure that a landbank can be

33


maintained at the end of the development plan period. It is not the intention of the MPG that mineral planning authorities should, at the start of the plan period, make full provision for the maintenance of a landbank for the period beyond the plan period. Consequently, it will not be necessary for resources to be identified at the time of plan preparation for this purpose. But mineral planning authorities will need to be able to demonstrate that such resources can be brought forward should this be necessary.

6.11 Objections claimed that the proposed allocations in the Plan do not meet the shortfall and so the Plan is contrary to MPG6. One objection suggested that the shortfall should be based on applying the precise apportionment figure of 2.665 mt pa, rather than the rounded figure of 2.6 mt pa used in the Plan, but this would only give rise to the need for an additional 0.3 mt over the plan period and so, in my opinion, is not significant.

6.12 Two objections seek an extended plan period, one to 2015, the other to 2016, arguing that the level of provision does not allow for uncertainties such as allocations not being implemented, the long lead times necessary to gain planning permission and scepticism about the intended review of the Plan.

6.13 PPG 12 (para 6.8) advises that the duration of a local plan should be for a period of 10 years from the plan’s forecast adoption date. The Council have commented that the period of this Plan was set when the Key Issues Report was published in 2001, with a forecast adoption date at the end of 2004. This has not been challenged. Therefore, although adoption will be most likely to have slipped, I consider that the advice in PPG12 was followed and so there is no reason to vary the period of the Plan. I realise that extending the Plan period to 2016 would then coincide with the period of the Guidelines, but the proximity of the dates is merely coincidental and not a good reason to synchronise them. I also recognise the possible difficulties about long lead times for developing mineral workings and the failure to implement planning permissions. However, both of those factors are built into the period advised as necessary for the landbank and so those special considerations need not be taken as sound reasons to extend either the period of the plan or a longer landbank.

6.14 One objection suggests that the Plan has allocated far too much sand and gravel and recommends 10-12 mt instead of 20.47 mt, based on meeting a requirement for only the Plan period and not beyond and queries the concept of landbanks. However, the principle of landbanks is established in MPG6 and the main issue relating to them is the extent which they should meet projected demand beyond the plan period, taking into account para 64 of MPG6 which states that there is no need, at the start of the period, to meet demand for 7 years beyond the plan period.

6.15 It seems to me that the Council has approached the landbank issue by examining the location of the mineral workings and the permitted reserves and the areas of the county where possible shortfalls may occur, without going into the more formal consideration of defined production zones. Therefore, rather then focussing on the precise mathematics of defining the exact period for which a landbank should be provided, the Plan has assessed the likelihood of where shortfalls will occur and evaluated the best option to maintain supplies. The Plan has had regard to the advice in MPG6 and I consider that its approach to the landbank is sound. If demand should

34


rise within the Plan period, there is the opportunity to adjust the figures at the review of the Plan, but it would have to take into account the overall balance of demand and supply within other mineral planning authority areas, rather than acting unilaterally. Therefore, I do not accept the need for flexibility as a sound reason to modify paragraph 6.28.

6.16 The Council has agreed with the objection suggesting that the tonnage at Misson should be 1.2 mt and has proposed the change within revision R91 which has been published in the Revised Deposit Plan. I consider that I need take no further action.

Table 6.4

6.17 Adverse comments were made about Table 6.4 in the Plan, but the figures merely reflect what the industry hopes is the planned output at each quarry or pit. The amounts may vary depending on commercial factors which cannot be foreseen. Therefore, they are no more than an indication at best. However, they do illustrate the pattern of supplies and the approximate working life of reserves. The figures in the Table may well cumulatively exceed the allocations, but they are merely an indication of the scale of production.

6.18 It could be argued that, using Table 6.4, the excess of production over the 2.65 mtpa derived from the apportionment should result in some sites not being needed until later in the Plan period than is suggested. However, firstly, the figures can be no more than illustrative and, secondly, even if they were to be taken as a reliable and firm outcome, the locational disparity between mineral workings and reserves/allocations would result in the sort of pattern which the table shows and the approximate years when the allocations would be needed. These comments apply to both the Gunthorpe and the Sturton le Steeple allocations.

6.19 I agree that Table 6.4 gives the impression of overprovision which cumulatively could remove the need to allocate Gunthorpe and Sturton le Steeple until around 2010. However, this interpretation places too great a reliance on production being at 2.65 mt pa, when the early indications are that it may be higher. In addition, there would be no flexibility should the review of the Plan not be complete by 2009 for some unforeseeable reason. Production at mineral workings cannot be controlled by the mineral planning authority and demands may be higher than currently projected.

6.20 There may well be sources of sand and gravel other then those listed in Table 6.4. However, I have no reason to doubt the Council’s view that they are so minor that they are not significant, which is how I would classify the Glebe Farm production at Gunthorpe quoted in one objection. The estimated contribution from secondary materials are already taken into account in producing the Guidelines and the apportionment. I note the comment in the Plan that Cromwell could supply some of the markets currently met by Hoveringham, but the production capacity as well as market area needs to be taken into account. Cromwell is more remote from the Nottingham market area than Hoveringham and the Gunthorpe allocation and so would result in more lorry traffic over a longer distance.

6.21 The Council has agreed with several objections to the content of Table 6.4 and has proposed changes to improve the accuracy. These are listed in the Council’s

35


response WS/NCC/376/1. Interestingly, 5 of the 8 proposed changes are at quarries where reserves will now last longer than at first described. This is consistent with my experience in other areas of England. It would not surprise me if the lives of those workings became longer as the end date approaches and bears out my overall belief that Table 6.4 is a very useful indicator of the location and timing of future supplies, but can be no more than illustrative.

6.22 The Council indicates that the shortfall in supply is concentrated in the Trent Valley between Nottingham and Newark and also in the Idle Valley, reflecting the uneven distribution of permitted reserves. An objection suggested that there is a specific shortfall in the Newark area, but there is no evidence to support that claim.

6.23 Further proposed changes have been put forward to update the Plan which would reflect the outcome of the latest national and regional guidelines advice. (FPC1 – 5) and I consider that these changes would meet the objections which seek such a revision.

6.24 An objection suggests that the forecast level of provision is too low, but I consider that the Plan closely follows the national and regional guidelines and there is the appropriate level of apportionment, which generally has been agreed. Production or sales trends are only one consideration. There has also to be an agreed match between mineral planning authorities within a Region. Using a 5 or 10 year production trend as a basis for forecasting would not be consistent with the method of apportionment used by the East Midlands Region.

Areas of Search

6.25 An objection proposed that Areas of Search should be used instead of allocations and I accept that this would not be contrary to MPG6 advice. Nevertheless, I consider that where detailed delineated allocations are possible, they are to be preferred, as they fulfil a primary aim of the development plan process by reducing uncertainty for the public, the industry and other interested parties. Provided the geological conditions are appropriate and the mineral planning authority has the confidence and the technical ability to promote allocations, I would not favour Areas of Search over the system of allocations proposed in the Plan.

Reclamation and After Use

6.26 An objection suggested that low level restoration to agriculture by perpetual low level pumping would be feasible. However, I agree with the Council that whereas this may be technically possible, it may not be appropriate for Nottinghamshire where there is not the preponderance of Grade 1 agricultural land which overlies potential mineral working areas. Accordingly, I see no reason to recommend modifying paragraph 6.12.

A review of the Plan

6.27 Objections make reference to the intended review of the Plan by 2009. The new development plan procedures under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 will influence when a review of policies and proposals might occur. Nevertheless, in

36


my opinion, there is no reason why a review of the contents of the Plan, albeit perhaps in a differently named document should not be complete by 2009. A review after 5 years would conform with the concept of “plan, monitor and manage”, rather than merely “predict and provide”, which is what could be inferred by allocating land which would satisfy the estimated demand for a period comprising the plan period and the full 7 year period afterwards.

6.28 Accordingly, overall, I agree with the Council’s responses to this section of the Plan. I consider that their approach to the landbank and apportionment has been sound.

Recommendation

6.29 I recommend that the Plan be modified by the changes sought in Further Proposed Changes 1 – 5 and the changes to improve factual accuracy outlined in WS/NCC/376/1, including FPC 7 and FPC 14.

********************

Para 6.33 -37 SELECTING ALLOCATIONS

Objection No. 1590 1729 SQUAT

Issue: - Environmental acceptability should be absolute; whether fewer sites lead to less of an environmental impact.

Conclusions

6.30 I agree that mineral operators will search for sites which suit them from a commercial point of view. However, the sites must also pass the environmental tests which are set out in the policies of the Plan and which should ensure even handed treatment between different localities. The tests are as absolute as is reasonably possible. However, I believe that the best possible sites environmentally are not always those which are the best from an all round planning point of view. The “best” sites may not be available due to land ownership issues or they may be in the wrong place. Accordingly, I do not accept that the Council was flawed in its approach to allocating sites in the Plan.

6.31 Paragraph 6.37 states that fewer sites should mean less of an environmental impact. The objection claims that this is not necessarily so and it depends on the degree of impact at specific sites. I agree with both points of view, but one does not preclude the other. Therefore, given the context and the generalised nature of the paragraph, I do not accept that the Plan should be modified.

Recommendation


********************

37


Para 6.41 THE TRENT VALLEY NOTTINGHAM TO NEWARK

Objection No’s. 640 Crown Estates, 1646 Latham Farms, 1677 Paddy Tipping MP, 1684 Ennstone Plc

Issue:- Whether to allocate sites between Nottingham and Newark.

Conclusions

6.33 I shall consider the site specific issues raised by objection 1677 in my conclusions on Gunthorpe.

6.34 An objection suggested that allocated sites may not be implemented during the plan period, so giving rise to the need for additional and substitute sites, and proposing that an alternative site be included now. I agree that it is possible that a site allocated in the Plan does not received planning permission following a more detailed assessment when a planning application is submitted. However, should this lead to an insufficiency in the landbank, any planning application to make good the deficit would be judged against Policy M6.3. I do not consider the possibility of allocations failing to be implemented should be used to justify additional sites being identified in the Plan. This would either add to uncertainty or create an excessive area of permitted workings which would be contrary to the sustainability aims of MPG1.

6.35 It could accord with government advice to explicitly exclude the area from Nottingham to Newark along the River Trent from further mineral working should the environmental constraints be so great. Furthermore, there may come a time when the degree of environmental constraints outweigh the demands for additional sand and gravel, but there are no grounds for reaching that conclusion now on the basis of the evidence which I have read and the sites which I have seen. Decisions should be made on a case by case basis taking into account the policies of the Plan and as recommended for modification in this report.

6.36 Adopting an Area of Search approach, as recommended in one objection, would reduce the clarity and certainty which the Plan, as drafted, has achieved. If my recommendations are adopted, the degree of shortfall compared to the amount of sand and gravel required would be small and the Plan would still comply with advice in MPG6. The long term security of the supply of sand and gravel would not be prejudiced by failing to adopt an Area of Search between Newark and Nottingham. An unforeseen shortage may trigger a review of the Plan earlier than would be the case. An Area of Search would result in unnecessary anxiety amongst the public and would also not achieve the benefits of added certainty for the minerals industry.

Recommendation


********************

Para 6.43 THE TRENT VALLEY NORTH OF NEWARK

38


Objection No. 692 Tarmac Central Ltd

Issue:- The status of Girton Quarry.

Conclusions

6.38 The Council accepts that Girton Quarry temporarily closed due to a change in the operating company’s structure, rather than being mothballed, but still maintains that the presence of two dormant quarries implies oversupply. I am not convinced that there is necessarily oversupply in this area as the timescale of consideration is short and, in any event, apparently Girton Quarry is due to reopen very soon. However, I would say there is no shortage. Therefore, to improve the accuracy of the Plan, I shall recommend rewording the first sentence of paragraph 6.43.

Recommendation

6.39 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the deletion of the first sentence of paragraph 6.43 and the substitution of “This section of the Trent Valley does not show any signs of shortage of sand and gravel as borne out by Girton Quarry, which has been inactive since 2000 but may reopen in 2004, and the delayed commencement of a new quarry at Cromwell permitted in 1998.”

********************

Para 6.52 PROPOSALS IN UNALLOCATED AREAS

Objection No. 489 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd

Issue:- Delays in obtaining planning permission.

Conclusions

6.40 I agree that it may take some time to gain planning permission for mineral workings. In my experience, this can be for a number of reasons, not least are delays caused by inadequate submissions by the developer. Nevertheless, if there is an impending shortfall in the landbank and if an operator applies for planning permission for sand and gravel to make good the shortfall, there is no reason why the application should be treated any differently to one within an allocated area. The Plan cannot guarantee that there will be no shortfall and, in my opinion, there are no reasonable policies which could be put in place which would enable a speedy remedy, other than operators coming forward with planning applications for the best sites at the appropriate time.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M6.3 SAND & GRAVEL EXTRACTION IN UNALLOCATED LAND

39


Objection No’s. 414 QPA, 488 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd

Issue:- Whether planning permission should be granted outside allocated areas.

Conclusions

6.42 An objection has referred to the policy in the adopted Minerals Local Plan which enables sites outside the allocated areas to obtain planning permission if net environmental benefits would occur. Such a policy is suggested for this Plan. However, the analysis which has occurred during plan preparation leads me to conclude that, subject to any comments I may have about the specific allocations and the sites which have been omitted, the Plan is fairly robust. If, due to the failure to permit land within allocated areas, or the failure to implement permissions, the sand and gravel landbank drops to less than 7 years, applications would be judged against Policy M6.3 and the environmental criteria outlined in the policies of the Plan. Processing capacity is one of the factors mentioned in the policy which could trigger a planning application.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE AREA – SOUTH MUSKHAM

Objection No. 487 Aggregate Industries

Issue:- The extent of the archaeological resource area.

Conclusions

6.44 An objection queried the extent of the archaeological protection area at South Muskham, in response to which the Council proposed a further change to the Plan (FPC 12). I have no reason to dispute the accuracy of the information supplied by the Council and accordingly, I shall recommend FPC 12 and consider that it meets the aim of the objection.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M6.4 ATTENBOROUGH

Objection No’s. 32 Maber, 33 Maber, 85 Mr. Sperry, 247 Collins, 509 RMC Aggregates UK Ltd, 569 Broxtowe BCl, 848 Marshall, 852 Mr

40


& Mrs Banks, 875 Strong, 882 Stonehouse, 890 Porter, 892 Marshall, 1703 Derbyshire CC, 1706 Derby CC

Issue:- The location of the processing plant site.

Conclusions

6.46 The Local Plan states that the Attenborough sand and gravel quarry has permitted reserves to last until 2010-11 with another 1.6 million tonnes allocated in land within Derbyshire in the Derbyshire Mineral Local Plan. This should be sufficient for a further 7 to 10 years. However, the site of the processing plant is in Nottinghamshire and sits uncomfortably close to residential property.

6.47 The planning history at Attenborough is complex, to say the least, not helped by the mineral being extracted from one county with the processing plant in another. Nevertheless, it is apparent to me that the processing plant is in an unsuitable location unless there are measures which can be satisfactorily introduced to mitigate its environmental impact.

6.48 Objections seek the relocation of the processing plant at the earliest opportunity. However, realistically this can only be done by negotiation. Enforced relocation or closure would attract compensation on a scale which would almost certainly prove unacceptable to the Council. There may be opportunities to relocate the plant in the future, but I consider that the Plan is reasonable to focus attention on having a policy to avoid prolonging the life of the plant and to negotiate environmental improvements where practicable. I do not see that the policy is inconsistent with the Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Local Plan. The policy seeks to test whether there is a better location for the plant site and, taking into account the close proximity of residential property, that is reasonable. The issue of the legality of the use of the barge route will be settled outside the scope of the Plan. I agree that it would be inappropriate for the Plan to prescribe the contents of a planning application. The policy does not do that: it merely lists items which would be pursued by negotiation with other parties.

6.49 In my opinion, the specification of the items in the list is not unreasonable and represents what would normally be sought by mineral planning authorities when trying to minimise the harm caused by processing plant and other aspects of mineral working. Although the sand tower has been, and may still be, a point of contention, I consider that the Council is correct in concentrating on the factors which give rise to the possible harm, rather than the sand tower itself. In which case the further proposed change (FPC 20) would be appropriate.

6.50 I note that, in its response, the Council referred to negotiations for a noise limit. The policy would only say “a reduction in the noise …impact…” without specifying a particular level. However, it seems likely that negotiations between the Council, the operators and Derbyshire County Council in relation to the most recent planning application at the site will overtake the process of completing the adoption of the Plan. Therefore, to a certain extent, the policy will only set the scene for more detailed negotiations and, in my opinion, that would be quite correct owing to the greater amount of information contained in the Environmental Statement.

41


6.51 Objections suggest that the policy should be amended to read “Such environmental improvements may include…” rather than “… should include…”, but I agree with the Council that opportunities should be taken to minimise the harm to a level which it considers acceptable. However, the reference to “as a minimum” lacks clarity, suggesting that there are unspecified environmental measures which should be taken. If they are unspecified, this suggests to me that they lack significance. Therefore, I shall recommend deleting that phrase, but introducing a further item for the list dealing with landscaping because, although certain trees may have matured, there may be other measures to take and also the existing trees may die or fail for some reason. This would assist with reducing the visual impact of the sand tower and other elements of the processing plant area. To a certain extent, this is consistent with the objection seeking improved screening of all the boundaries of the plant area, but screening all the boundaries may not be necessary and so I shall only recommend landscaping measures as appropriate.

6.52 The suggestion that the third paragraph should refer to “shall” instead of “should” seems to me to be a matter of semantic detail which would not improve the Plan and so I shall not recommend it.

6.53 An objection seeks the deletion of the reference to the use of water bowsers, but, given that they are used on internal haul roads to minimise dust, I consider that they would be valuable and hence the reference to them should remain in the policy.

6.54 I do not support any change to the policy to seek the cessation of the barge route from Derbyshire. Barge transport would normally be preferable to lorry transport on roads. If there is a nature conservation issue concerned with pollution control, it may be possible to mitigate the impact satisfactorily.

6.55 I note the wish to include more emphasis against the use of HGVs on Allendale Avenue, but the response from the Council has persuaded me that the road is essential for the operation of the plant. Therefore, I shall not recommend that the text should be modified.

Recommendation

6.56 I recommend that the Plan is modified by (i) FPC 20, (ii) the deletion of “… as a minimum …” and (iii) the addition of “(g) such additional landscaping, as appropriate, in order to reduce visual impact.”

********************

POLICY M6.5 HOVERINGHAM (BLEASBY)

Objection No’s. 292 Newark and Sherwood DC, 1281 Bleasby PC

Plus 118 Objections from local residents as detailed in Appendix 1

Issues:- Whether the environmental objections are sufficient to justify deleting the proposed allocation.

42


Conclusions

6.57 Objectors have raised a variety of issues in the process of objecting to the proposed allocation at Bleasby. The scenario envisaged by the Council is that it is a small final extension to the Hoveringham operation and mineral would be transported by internal haul road to be processed through the existing plant (as proposed in Further Change 10).

6.58 The proposed allocation is over 400m from the nearest building at Bleasby which is the primary school, 500m from the nearest property at Goverton and about 600m from the nearest property at Thurgarton. Therefore, I do not consider that the concerns raised about noise or dust have any significant foundation. Plant working at the site and pumping might be heard and dust might be caused which carries away from the site, but neither noise nor dust should be of such significance to count against the allocation. Both issues should be capable of being minimised to a level by planning conditions at the planning application stage so that any disturbance caused would be insignificant. Any impact would be over a very short period of time as the estimate of extractable material in the site is about 120,000 tonnes which, when compared to the production rate at Hoveringham of 450,000 tonnes, should result in an active operation of considerably less than one year.

6.59 I have no reason to doubt the economic viability of the deposit within the allocation. Indeed, if the extraction ceased to be viable at some stage during the brief operation, the restoration which the Council should agree as part of a planning application should be triggered.

6.60 Any impact on the public right of way extending though the site should be minimised as part of a scheme of working agreed in a planning application. The likely short term nature of the operation, as well as any phasing, would result in any significant impact being only over a matter of months. The land which is operational should be secured to prevent trespass from the public right of way in order to prevent danger to passers by.

6.61 The indications from the Council are that only parts of the allocation contain workable mineral in which case there would be a greater opportunity to retain existing hedge boundaries. The Plan states that restoration would be to a water area and if the deposit is not as consistent as previously thought, there should be greater opportunities to produce a more varied and interesting lake shape which could maximise nature conservation interests.

6.62 I do not accept that the site has been assessed using criteria different to those used for other possible allocations, for example at Holme Pierrepont and Hoveringham. In any event, I consider that the impact of operations at the proposed allocation should have a minimal environmental impact subject to appropriate planning conditions. I note that there is evidence of subsidence on the higher ground in the area to the north west of the railway line but I have no substantial evidence to indicate that this would become worse if there was extraction of the sand and gravel here.

43


6.63 Therefore, I do not consider the objections which have been made are sufficient to justify recommending deleting the allocation.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M6.6 & Paras 6.68 – 6.75 GUNTHORPE

Objection No’s. 113 BRAG, 217 Burton Joyce PC, 408 Gunthorpe PC, 426 Bulcote PC, 533 NWT, 582 Ramblers Association, 669 CPRE, 1198 Burton Joyce Preservation Society, 1307 Burton Joyce and Bulcote Local History Society, 1308 Burton Joyce Residents Association, 1601 Gedling BC, 1627 Lowdham PC, 1678 Vernon Coaker MP

Plus 836 Objections from local residents as detailed in Appendix 1

Para 6.69 Revision R100 GUNTHORPE

Subsequent Objection No. 2076 Paddy Tipping MP

Issue:- The extent of any allocation at Gunthorpe.

Conclusions

6.65There were many objections raised to the proposal allocation in the Plan. I shall deal with the variety of issues raised as follows.

6.66 Most significant planning applications for sand and gravel extraction would require an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment) Regulations. This assessment would normally consider environmental issues in much more depth than occurs with the preparation of the Local Plan. My comments below are aimed at establishing whether the principle of the allocation would be acceptable.

6.67 I have concluded above that the Council’s general assessment of the need for sand and gravel is sound. The increased role that secondary aggregates is expected to play is already taken into account in the guidelines provided by Government and which have been apportioned regionally.

6.68 The Council has effectively divided the county into sub areas according to the location of sand and gravel resources, with one sub area being the extent of the Trent Valley between Newark and Nottingham. Gunthorpe has been allocated in the Plan to meet shortfalls in this sub area, especially with regard to supplying demand caused by construction activity in and around Nottingham. In my opinion, this is a reasonable premise. Sand and gravel is the most significant bulky raw material of the

44


construction industry and so one would reasonably assume that large urban areas would consume most aggregate, other than one off major construction projects. No comparable sites of sand and gravel near to Nottingham have been proposed, or are the subject of objections for inclusion in the Plan, other than those near Newark.

6.69Accordingly, the proximity to Nottingham is a factor of significant weight. I accept that concrete plants to which a large part of the mineral would be transported are located more widely. However, overall, the direction of movement of aggregate for the construction industry would be towards the major built up area of Nottingham. Therefore, I shall consider the environmental constraints affecting the allocation at Gunthorpe.

6.70 The Council examined all the sites which came forward for consideration in the Plan in the Sustainability Appraisal. This was subject to significant criticism in relation to several sites, not just Gunthorpe. However, the criticism was directed at the methods used in assessing individual environmental components or weightings and comparisons within the Appraisal, not the principle. I believe that it is inevitable that subjective judgements have been made by the Council within the Appraisal and also that it has summarised the information to a symbolic form and I generally support this approach.

Green Belt

6.71 The allocation is located within the Green Belt, but mineral extraction is considered as one of the types of development which may be appropriate under Policy 3/2 of the Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review. Openness may be protected by the careful design of plant, use of appropriate low level machinery and minimising the height of any screening bunds. I consider that there is no reason to delete the allocation because of its Green Belt location.

Residential Amenity

6.72 The evidence suggests that the nearest properties to the proposed allocation are Grange Farm, The Cedars and others on the western edge of Gunthorpe, Beecroft Farm and houses on the eastern and southern edges of Bulcote village and the south eastern edge of Burton Joyce. The distances quoted are between 200m and 500m and I have no reason to doubt them.

6.73 The land is low lying and generally level, although with a slight slope developing towards and beyond the A612 as it climbs away from the river. Nevertheless, there are no folds of land which would both screen mineral workings and assist in attenuating noise. Therefore, other than boundary hedges, earth bunds and distance would be the main mitigating factors in the short term, although tree and shrub planting could be a longer term means of creating a visual barrier where one is needed.

6.74 In my opinion, there would be a sufficient gap between the workings in the proposed allocation and residential properties to overcome any significant disturbance which could be caused by noise provided standard mitigation measures are put in place, where appropriate, via conditions on a planning permission.

45


6.75 However, a balance would have to be struck between the heights of any screening bunds and the distance between the bunds and residential properties. Earth bunds can create an artificial discordant shape in a flat landscape, although they may only be required for the duration of the active operation. The aim should be to minimise impact on the visual amenities of residents whilst providing an effective screen against noise and the sight of plant, machinery etc within the workings.

Restoration

6.76 Although adverse comments have been made about the possibility of part of the site being used for a marina following the completion of extraction, the Plan refers only to water based recreation/conservation. There is also a reference to restoring part of the site for agriculture. It is clear from the Plan that a balance would be sought between restoration to water and agriculture. I have no reason to question such a stance. Given the riverside location, the level of the water table, the topography and the general amount of inert material available which would be suitable for placing in such a location, total restoration to agriculture would be unlikely.

6.77 The range of activities which would fall within water based land uses could befrom more intensive commercial development such as a marina, through less intensive, but still commercial such as private angling, to sites dedicated to nature conservation interests with more or less public access. The Plan does not preclude any after use and, for a Minerals Local Plan, that is appropriate, particularly as proposals for after uses which constitute development and do not include waste disposal, would be dealt with by the District Council.

6.78 I do not see the presence of areas of former sand and gravel extraction which have not been restored as being part of any sort of case in favour of the allocation at Gunthorpe. This would be merely rewarding a failure to restore land. There is a separate procedure for entirely restoring old mineral workings, although assessing restoration on a comprehensive basis would be good practice.

Landscape

6.79 The areas of the allocation fall within the River Meadowlands landscape character type. A combination of flood meadows and arable fields can be seen. consider that the landscape would change following sand and gravel extraction to create more of the River Valley Wetlands, into which the nearby former mineral workings fall. There may well be an opportunity to change the more arable landscape to one which has more in common with meadows and wetlands associated with the wide river valley. Para 6.75 states the need to conserve hedgerows along internal roads. Therefore, provided that any planning application recognises the need to maximise the retention of the existing hedges and trees along field boundaries, I can see no reason why the effect of mineral extraction on the landscape should result in the allocation being deleted.

6.80 I realise that there is a perception that some open space would lost. This would be land which is not necessarily public but over which the public can see, and which adds to their appreciation of the countryside landscape. However, any changes would

46

I


not necessarily be harmful in the longer term when active mineral working had ceased and the land is restored.

Archaeology

6.81 The evidence suggested that the potential impact on archaeological remains would be lower at Gunthorpe than other sites considered for allocation for sand and gravel extraction in the Plan. There was no suggestion that archaeological remains at the site would be a significant impediment to allocation.

Public rights of way

6.82 I am not aware of any public open space which would be lost. However, several public footpaths would be affected by mineral extraction in the allocation, some of which I would expect to be well used, especially at weekends and in holiday periods. Nevertheless, with the amount of phased working which I would expect within such an extensive allocation, and the degree of hedge cover, it should be possible to minimise disruption. Given that extraction is a temporary use of land, the amount of public access should be no less than currently exists and might even, with imagination and firm negotiation, be extended and improved. Therefore, I do not consider that the public rights of way network is a reason to justify deleting or amending the proposed allocation.

Transport

6.83 I note that the road access is considered acceptable in principle and considered by the highway authority able to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. Transport by barge is a possibility to take mineral out and/or inert waste back into the site, but this factor is not a determining issue in concluding on the acceptability or otherwise of the allocation. I note the suggestion that access could be direct to the A612. However, any bridge over the adjoining railway line would cause a significant impact on the landscape and would be unjustified taking into account the lack of technical objection to the access onto the A6097.

6.84 The A612 is a Category 1 road forming part of the county’s Strategic Road Network. HGVs are directed to use these roads and traffic needs will receive priority. Therefore, in principle I consider that there is no objection to the sand and gravel extracted from the allocation using the A612. The Council’s assessment indicates that the predicted number of HGVs from working in the allocation would increase the 12 hour flow traffic levels by less than 1% with an increase in the morning peak flow by about 2%. Accordingly, I consider that the impact on the highway network, particularly through Burton Joyce and Bulcote would not be significant.

Flooding

6.85 There is a long history of sand and gravel extraction from the flood plain of the River Trent in the county. PPG25 leaves no doubt that flooding is an issue which has to be taken extremely seriously. However, government advice does not preclude mineral working in flood plains. Indeed para 33 of PPG25 recognises that mineral resources may occur in areas of flood risk because of their geological origin and that

47


mineral extraction in such areas may even provide benefits such as the provision of additional storage for flood water where this is feasible, would not increase the risk of flooding and is environmentally acceptable in all other respects. Particular attention should be paid to the possible impacts of ancillary structures including mineral stockpiles to ensure that they do not impede flood flows or reduced flood storage capacity.

6.86 The Environment Agency has been consulted about the Plan and does not raise an objection to the allocation at Gunthorpe. I would normally expect any planning application for sand and gravel extraction here to include an assessment of the flood risk in the accompanying Environmental Statement and as described in para 60 of PPG25. This should show any increase in the liability of certain land to flood and any mitigating measures which should be introduced, such as ensuring the appropriate level of land during and after extraction. Drainage issues should also be considered in the same way as sought in Policy M3.9.

6.87 I can understand that there could be differences of opinion about the significance of certain data within any hydraulic modelling which is carried out. However, I consider that this is an issue for the level of detail of a planning application and not the allocation in the Plan. It is possible that, in an exceptional case, more detailed information reveals difficulties of such magnitude that they cannot be overcome by mitigation or other measures sought in planning conditions. In that case, planning permission may be refused, despite the allocation, and the subsequent shortfall of sand and gravel may trigger an earlier review of the Plan. Nevertheless, in my opinion, that would not be a sufficiently sound reason not to include the allocation in the current Plan. Therefore, I do not accept that there are any reasons associated with the flooding of the River Trent why the allocation should be deleted from the Plan.

Dewatering and Land Stability

6.88 Objections suggest, quite reasonably, that dewatering could cause subsidence in nearby land which would then affect overlying buildings. The Council believes that a recharge trench could be used to raise the water table which has been lowered due to dewatering. The extent of the recharge trench would depend to a large extent on the cone of depression. I do not doubt that, if correctly designed and maintained, a recharge trench or trenches should prevent mineral extraction from lowering the water table in critical areas, such as beneath Bulcote. Therefore it is essential that any recharge trenches to be dug should be correctly designed, constructed and maintained. However, important though this factor is, I consider that it is a matter of detail and I would expect the evaluation of such a process to take place as part of the assessment of any planning application.

6.89 Objections have suggested that the Bulcote Conservation Area would be adversely affected by dewatering. The Council accepts that changes in ground water level could potentially damage the structural stability of some buildings and possibly damage trees. Nevertheless, for the character or appearance of the Conservation Area to be neither enhanced nor preserved by sand and gravel extraction, there would need to be sufficient change to the components of the Conservation Area and also any changes would have to be linked directly to dewatering associated with mineral working.

48


6.90 The Plan does not identify dewatering or the effect on the Bulcote Conservation Area as major planning issues in para 6.75. I do not consider that the Plan is deficient in not referring to them, as the items are more or less a check list of factors which developers would take into account in submitting a planning application and which, in any event, is not comprehensive. However, I would expect the effect of dewatering to be assessed as part of a planning application where possible and where appropriate. In my opinion, whether older buildings are more prone to settlement than those built more recently and whether seasonal factors would be of greater significance than any effects of sand gravel extraction should be matters for assessment at the planning application stage and do not justify grounds for deleting the allocation.

6.91 I am conscious of the issue of the stability of the land to the north of the A612 in and around Burton Joyce. There are evident signs of ground movement. However, the extent of influence that this should have on the allocation in the Plan is arguable. In my opinion, whether sand and gravel extraction from within the allocation would exacerbate ground movement and, if so, whether there are any on site remedial measures which could be undertaken, are matters which should be dealt with at the planning application stage.

The setting of the Bulcote Conservation Area.

6.92 PPG15 advises that the setting of a Conservation Area is a material consideration when considering whether the character or appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved or enhanced. The Council accepts that the proposed area of gravel extraction, is within what would be construed as the setting of the Bulcote Conservation Area. The “proposed area of extraction” need not equate with the allocation in the Plan, but I shall set that issue aside.

6.93 There would certainly be some potential for views out of the Conservation Area to be affected by gravel extraction from within the allocation in the Plan. Nevertheless the significance of the effect is largely a function of the distance of the workings from the Conservation Area and whatever it is that can be seen. If low earth mounds are used to conceal the mineral workings, the effect may be less than if the mounds were to be higher. Moreover the existing hedges would assist in ameliorating any adverse impact as would tree and shrub planting. In addition, the period over which the offending element which would be in the Conservation Area setting could be seen is relevant. Mineral workings are temporary users of the land and if extraction and restoration are phased, the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area could be minimised.

6.94 If the setting is to be preserved or enhanced, there is an issue over the extent to which the current setting is relevant. The extensive fields affording long views which now form part of the setting may not have been a component of the landscape when the buildings which form the core of the Conservation Area were built. The views may well have been more enclosed by trees and hedges, similar to the landscape nearer to the river.

6.95 Overall, I consider that the effect of sand and gravel working on the setting of the Bulcote Conservation Area should be tested at the planning application stage. There

49


is the capability of mineral working affecting the setting so adversely that extraction to the boundary of the allocation would be unacceptable. However, the effect will only be genuinely assessed when detailed proposals are made to extract sand and gravel. Therefore, I do not agree with the objections seeking the deletion of the allocation due to the effect on the setting of the Bulcote Conservation Area.

Summary

6.96 Although there are many factors which have had to be taken into account in concluding on the objections and arriving at a recommendation, I consider overall that there is no reason why the allocation should be deleted. In my opinion, insufficient emphasis was placed by the Council on the potential for phased working and restoration within the allocation which would minimise the extent of active working and would see an early return to a less visually damaging environment. In addition, there appears to have been little attempt to exploit the potential for improved public access near the River Trent, both in its extent and its quality.

6.97 However, such negotiations would be appropriate within the context of a planning application. There were suggestions that the allocation at Gunthorpe should be treated as two; the earlier allocation in the adopted Local Plan and the western extension. I have kept this in mind throughout my considerations, but could find no sound reason to separate the two in the report. Different issues might apply with more or less emphasis to different parts of the allocation because it is so extensive, but a division based on whether or not the land had been within the currently adopted plan is not logical.

6.98 There were also submissions made that the Human Rights Act had been infringed. However, the Council informed me that all the required statutory procedures had been complied with in connection with the preparation of the Local Plan and the inquiry and I have no substantive evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, I have no reason to conclude that the conduct of the inquiry infringed the Human Rights of any participant.

6.99 Therefore, I do not support the objections and shall recommend that the Plan is not modified.

Recommendation


********************

Para 6.76 CROMWELL RECYCLING


Issue:- Whether to have a policy about recycling/processing of river dredgings.

Conclusions

50


6.101 Cromwell is a former, worked out sand and gravel quarry which is being progressively restored using inert fill. There is an aggregates recycling facility on the site which largely recycles construction and demolition waste. I understand from the Council’s response that there is a current planning application which seeks to extend the end date of the restoration from 2006 to 2026. It seems to me that the site is essentially an inert landfill site albeit with secondary aggregates processing facilities. Therefore, although the aggregate produced is undoubtedly a useful addition to supplies in the area, I do not consider that there should be a policy in the Plan for this specific site. Applications to recycle material would be judged against the policies of the Waste Local Plan. Accordingly, I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

Para 6.86 GIRTON FUTURE ASSESSMENT


Issue:- The reopening of Girton.

Conclusions

6.103 The objection seeks the reopening of Girton by the removal of the allocation at Lound. However, the objection has been superseded by events, in that the Lound allocation has received planning permission and the Council has resolved to grant planning permission to reopen Girton Quarry with a new plant and access road, subject to the completion of a legal agreement. Therefore, I shall not recommend a modification to the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M6.7 RAMPTON

Objection No’s 422 West Lindsey DC, 534 NWT, 1309 Cllr. Knight

Issues:- Indicate mitigation measures in the Plan; establish seasonally flooded wet grassland.

Conclusions

6.105 20 hectares are allocated for sand and gravel working. Concerns are expressed about the proximity of the allocation to Torksey, Torksey Lock and Torksey Castle. However, I consider that if the distance from Torksey to the

51


allocation is 400m, there is a gap which should be sufficient for normal planning conditions to mitigate any harmful effects that there might otherwise be, especially caused by noise, dust or visual intrusion. Any planning application would have to demonstrate that the flood storage capacity would not be adversely affected.

6.106 Although the creation of seasonally flooded wet grassland would benefit Biodiversity, the PFA necessary for restoration cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, even if considered highly desirable, the Plan is not able to state that restoration should include the creation of a substantial area of seasonally wet grassland.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M6.8 AND Paras 6.92 – 6.94 STURTON LE STEEPLE

Objection No’s. 308 RAGE, 343 Everton PC, 380-1 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 395 Mr. Mann MP, 421 West Lindsey DC, 491 Knaith PC, 535 NWT, 584 Ramblers Association, 927 St. Mary’s Knaith Parochial Church Council, 1591, 1593 SQUAT, 1655 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 1659 The Landmark Trust

Plus 124 Objections From Local Residents As Detailed In Appendix 1


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2264 RMC Aggregates, 2298 SQUAT


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2289 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2295 Burton Joyce Residents Association, 2300 SQUAT, 2336 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd


Subsequent Objection No. 2290 Sturton Le Steeple PC


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2002 St. Mary’s Knaith Parochial Church Council, 2109 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2150 Mr & Mrs. J. Burke, 2190 Ramblers Association, 2259 West Lindsey DC, 2301 SQUAT


52


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2291 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2337, Lafarge Aggregates Ltd


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2004 St. Mary’s Knaith Parochial Church Council, 2268 EDF Energy, 2292 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2302 SQUAT, 2338 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Para 6.94a Revision R112

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2065 Cottam Power Ltd, 2162 RAGE, 2168 R.T & J. Edwards, 2261 West Lindsey DC, 2267 St. Mary’s Knaith Parochial Church Council, 2303 SQUAT, 2315 NWT, 2339 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

POLICY M6.8 Revision R113

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2085 Trustees of G.M.T. Foljambe, 2110 Sturton Le Steeple PC, 2151 Mr & Mrs. J. Burke, 2169 R.T & J. Edwards, 2304 SQUAT

PROPOSALS MAP INSET SIX Revision R148

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2003 St. Mary’s Knaith Parochial Church Council, 2152 Mr & Mrs. J. Burke, 2163 RAGE, 2170 R. T & J. Edwards, 2191 Ramblers Association, 2260 West Lindsey DC, 2305 SQUAT

Issues:- The extent of the allocation, if any, at Sturton le Steeple.

Conclusions

Need

6.108 The need for sand and gravel from the county has been dealt with earlier in the report. As I have stated, I accept the general thrust of the strategy of the Plan in considering the different production and demand zones within the county. Accordingly, I do not accept that the Plan over provides for sand and gravel. The time at which sites are required will be largely dictated by the cessation of alternative supplies. The Plan indicates a likely scenario in Table 6.4. There may well be slippage in some of the years as some sites manage to extract a bit more sand and gravel than has been anticipated and so extend the reserve life. Nevertheless, I agree with the broad picture which is displayed in the Table and I do not consider that the suggestion that there would be oversupply in the first few years of the Plan to be significant. Although an objection claimed that Besthorpe has the capacity to accommodate the demands that the allocation at Sturton le Steeple is planned to meet,

53


the quantities dictate that both sites (or alternatives) are required. Therefore, one is not an alternative to the other. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Sturton le Steeple allocation should be held in reserve.

Size

6.109 The estimated 10 million tonnes of sand and gravel and 1.25 million tonnes of building sand are contained within the 123 ha shown on the Inset Map. The Council comments that the yield would be comparable to other high yield Trent Valley sand and gravel sites. The estimated life of the quarry would be about 20 years, assuming a rate of production of 500,000t pa.

6.110 The allocation may well provide sand and gravel beyond the period of the Plan, but the size of the allocation and any subsequent planning permission has to recognise factors such as the geological circumstances of the deposit, the topography, location and relationship to other quarries. In this case, the allocation is a green field site where processing plant would be necessary. That in itself would necessitate a significant allocation in order to justify the capital investment. In addition, the allocation extends over an area close to the viable limit of extraction, which would result in added certainty within the planning process. A much smaller allocation would divert the demand elsewhere to another location, or postpone consideration until a later date whenever the Plan is reviewed. However, the Plan would then be deficient as insufficient mineral would have been identified to meet the apportionment requirement. I agree with the Council that a decision on where sand and gravel should be allocated has to be made during this Plan period before the Plan is to be reviewed.

6.111 Accordingly, in principle and subject to my conclusions on details below, I do not support the contention that the allocation is too large, either in extent or in terms of sand and gravel within it. I note that objections seek a significant reduction in the area allocated so that no land is identified east of the Mother Drain

Landscape, dust and noise, light and visual impact

6.112 I consider that the most significant effects of mineral working within the allocation would be the impact on the landscape and the impact on residential amenities through noise, dust and visual effects.

6.113 There is no doubt that mineral working would be a new land use and with hedgerows and hedgerow trees being removed as well as land being excavated, there would be a significant change to the appearance of the countryside here. The traditional meadowland character has largely disappeared from the area west of the River Trent, with conversion to geometric arable fields. Therefore, although an extensive area would be taken for mineral working, I consider that the overall impact on the landscape would not be harmful. Indeed there would be scope for the introduction of some variety and reversion to pasture through a reclamation scheme, as part of a planning permission, which could be described as an improvement.

6.114 Dust can arise from handling soil, overburden and sand and gravel. Noise can be caused by the operation of plant and machinery and goods vehicles within the site.

54


The allocation is sufficiently far from the village of Sturton le Steeple to enable noise and dust emanating from the site to be attenuated to an acceptable level. In my opinion, there would be little discernable impact on the village.

6.115 However, there are properties to the south and especially to the east across the River Trent which could incur a significant impact. The level land to the south of the allocation offers scope for attenuating measures to reduce the impact of noise to the properties beyond. The land to the east of the River Trent in the vicinity of Knaith is at a slightly higher ground level than the allocation. Therefore, screening bunds which would both attenuate noise and also assist in hiding the excavation would have more of a visual impact. The eastern edge of any likely actual excavation would be about 600m from Knaith Hall and at least 800m from Knaith. In my opinion, there should be no reason why properties should suffer from excessive noise or dust provided satisfactory mitigation is carried out. The mitigation measures would be identified at the planning application stage.

6.116 Similarly, I do not accept that the proximity of the properties in Knaith to the allocation is a sufficient reason to modify the allocation due to the visual impact. Much would depend on the detail of a proposal in a planning application and the judgements to be made on the extent to which the workings could be developed near to the eastern boundary. The mere visibility of development from a residential property, whether it be sand and gravel extraction or some other form of mineral working, is not a justification for preventing it. There will be the opportunity to phase any working and restoration so that not all of the ground will be an open excavation at the same time. Moreover, extraction would not be present at the margins of the site for the duration of any operation.

6.117 The issue of light pollution would be ameliorated to a certain extent by limiting operating hours and ensuring that illumination within the site is controlled by planning condition to minimise unnecessary glare. Accordingly, I do not consider that there is any sound reason on the above grounds to either delete the allocation or to restrict it so that it did not extend to the east of the Mother Drain. Any impact by development on property values, either positively or negatively, is not normally a planning consideration.

Nature conservation

6.118 Although concerns have been raised about the effects on nature conservation interests of sand and gravel extraction from the proposed allocation, there is no evidence to suggest that either nationally or locally designated sites would be harmed. I note the presence nearby of the Out Ings Candidate SINC and the Lea Marsh Area of Nature Conservation Interest. PPG9 gives clear advice about the methodology for assessing the impact of development on nature conservation. If the Environmental Impact Assessment process carried out for a planning application reveals matters which require mitigation or compensation, it should be possible to impose planning conditions, or seek an agreement, which would provide for a remedy. Therefore, I do not accept that the possible impact of sand and gravel on nature conservation interests should lead to either the deletion or modification of the proposed allocation.

Archaeology

55


6.119 I note that there are two Scheduled Ancient Monuments and a listed building near the allocation and that early indications are that there are sites of interest within the allocation although their significance has not been determined. I would expect the Environmental Statement to deal with archaeology and for any remedial measures which are necessary to be proposed as part of the planning application. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed allocation should be deleted or amended in any way.

Traffic and Access

6.120 The Plan states traffic movements would be controlled to avoid Sturton le Steeple and Retford. Lorry traffic would travel north along the Sturton Road to join the County’s Strategic Road Network at the junction with the A620. There are no objections to the allocation from any local highway authorities on traffic grounds. Therefore, I consider that there is no reason on highways grounds to delete the proposed allocation.

6.121 A Revision to the Plan suggests that an alternative access through the adjoining power station may be possible. This would avoid the construction of a new access nearby. In response to an objection to the Revision, the Council has conceded that the access proposed in the Plan is suitable, but offers the comment that the shared access may be better from the environmental point of view. Having inspected the site and looked at both the width and the visibility available, I agree with the Council that the access proposed in the Plan appears acceptable and so sharing the power station access cannot be a made a requirement of sand and gravel development. However, there may be an opportunity to examine the options in more detail when a planning application is made. Therefore, I do not support the objection which seeks the deletion of the Revision, nor the objections which aim to make the shared access a requirement of the Plan.

Reclamation

6.122 The statement in the Plan that at least part of the workings could be filled with power station ash has drawn objections from those who claim it is too specific and others concerned about dust. Another objection wishes to see the site largely reclaimed using inert waste.

6.123 Although PFA has been used widely and successfully to restore sand and gravel workings in the county and elsewhere, its general availability has decreased due to the decline in and closure of coal fired power stations and also the increasing use of ash as a secondary aggregate. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that PFA from West Burton and/or Cottam power stations may be available. Transport would most likely be other than by road (para 6.94a of the Plan). Restoration using PFA would be useful as it would increase the extent of land returned to some form of agriculture, ideally as high a grade as possible, and would enable some of the deeper excavations to be made more conducive to a nature conservation after use. Therefore, I agree that the Plan should continue to provide for the possibility and include the appropriate reference as it now does.

56


6.124 An insistence on the use of PFA in most or all of the site would not be realistic due to the lack of certainty about the amount available. Furthermore, insistence on the use of inert fill as an alternative is unrealistic as there is generally a limited amount of inert waste available and it is particularly difficult to ensure that it is available when needed for phased restoration. Issues of dust should be capable of resolution through dust mitigation measures when a planning application is considered. Therefore, I do not support the objections to the references to reclamation and restoration in this section of the Plan. Various amendments to the reclamation paragraph were suggested which expanded on using PFA and inert fill but, in the interest of brevity, I shall not accept them.

Other issues

6.125 A further objection concerns the scope and strength of matters contained in Paragraph 6.94 of the Plan. However, this paragraph merely sets out what the Plan sees as the main planning issues. It is not prescriptive and cannot supersede what are eventually considered to be the principle planning issues when a planning application is made. The contents of the paragraph are indicative only, but are a useful guide for development control purposes.

6.126 According to the Council, the plant site indicated on the Plan is about 1.25 km from the nearest residential property, in which case, the impact from noise or dust should be minimal. The visual effect would have a greater impact, but a location near to woodland would reduce the harmful effects a far as possible. However, I would expect the location of the plant site to be fixed at the planning application stage when there has been a thorough assessment of the options available and the noise, dust and visual issues which would arise. I do not support a modification of the Plan to vary the plant site.

6.127 Rail transport may be possible from the rail head at the power station, but as I have concluded that there is no reason why sand and gravel should not be transported by road, there would be no pressure for operators to seek to acquire access rights to the rail facility. Barge transport is more feasible as some sand and gravel already travels along the River Trent by this method. However, because road transport would be acceptable, I do not accept that it would be reasonable to insist that barge transport should be a requirement.

6.128 Rights of way would undoubtedly be affected by mineral working in the allocation. However, the area is so extensive that there should be scope for appropriate diversions and I do not consider that the presence of the rights of way is a reason to modify the extent of the allocation.

6.129 The objection made about land drainage, groundwater and the need not to move the Mother Drain is an engineering issue and should be able to be dealt with at the planning application stage and I do not consider that it is a reason to modify the Plan. In my opinion, there is no need to refer to a requirement to examine locations outside the allocation which might be affected by extraction from within the allocation although, in anticipation of favourable decisions, a prudent operator should already be examining ways of reducing the visual impact on views from Knaith, by such measures as advance planting and phasing. I do not see there is any realistic

57


possibility of imported aggregate being processed at the site and do not consider it is reasonable to modify the Plan to say so.

6.130 I see no reason why the allocation should equate to the extraction area. Minerals workings include land which might be used for ancillary surface development, screening, drainage, mobile plant storage areas and processing plant. It is reasonable to include land which might be used for those purposes. Conversely, just because land is shown as an allocation, it need not follow that it is all used. Much will depend on the content of any subsequent planning application.

6.131 Objections were made to details of possible production in Table 6.4 and paragraph 6.93 and I support the further changes proposed by the Council to correct the inconsistencies. Therefore, in summary I do not support any other objections to the Sturton le Steeple allocation and shall not recommend any modification to the Plan other than as below.

Recommendation

6.132 I recommend that the Plan is modified by FPCs 9 and 10.

********************

POLICY M6.9 & Para 6.101 LOUND ALLOCATION

Objection No’s. 471 Bassetlaw FoE, 671 CPRE, 1589 Hayton PC

Plus 31 Objections From Local Residents As Detailed In Appendix 1


Subsequent Objection No’s. 2116 Mr. H.G. Oates, 2345 Ramblers Association

Issue:- Whether to delete the allocation.

Conclusions

6.133 Since the publication of the Revised Deposit version of the Plan, a planning application to develop the quarry has been approved. According to the Council the site coincides with the allocation delineated in the Plan. Comparing the plan I have (Plan B October 2003 ref: 1/29/02/00012) with the Inset 7 of the Plan shows that, other than a small, narrow strip along the eastern boundary, the allocation is now the subject of planning permission for sand and gravel. I have no evidence to indicate the merits or otherwise of this allocated land which is now outside the permitted area. However, the allocation appears to have been implemented by the planning permission and if the land which is outside the permitted area but within the allocation is now surplus, it should be deleted. I have read the objections but any conclusions which I might have had about them have now been superseded by the grant of planning permission.

58


Recommendation

6.134 I recommend that the Plan is not modified, other than the deletion of the small area of land on the eastern boundary as referred to above.

********************

Paras 6.110 & 6.114 MISSON WEST QUARRY

Objection No. 406 Misson PC

POLICY M6.10 & Paras 6.11 – 6.113 MISSON (FINNINGLEY) QUARRY

Objection No’s. 37 Bidewell, 110 B. Willerton, 215 Mr & Mrs. Allan, 382-5, 394 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd





Issues:- There should be an Area of Search; environmental objections to mineral working; factual corrections; delineate the area to which Policy M6.11 applies.

Conclusions

6.135 An objection proposed that instead of an allocation at Misson West, there should be an Area of Search. The disadvantage of an Area of Search is that there would be greater uncertainty, typically over a wider area. There would be no lesser chance of a planning application being submitted, but less certainty over the precise site. The advantage of an allocation is that there is less likelihood of sites outside it being the subject of a planning application or, especially, a planning permission. Therefore, provided that the geological information is sufficient and other assessments have been carried out, I consider that an allocation is generally preferable to an Area of Search.

6.136 A number of objections comment on the environmental impact that mineral working would have caused by extraction from the allocated area. However, I understand from the response of the Council that planning permission has been granted for mineral working in the allocation subject to the completion of a legal agreement. I have no evidence that the agreement has been completed and I have not seen a decision notice for any planning permission. Nevertheless, having read the objections and seen the surroundings of the site, I believe the issues raised should be able to be dealt with by the imposition of conditions on a planning permission or by a legal agreement whichever is appropriate for the aspect under consideration. Therefore, I shall not recommend any modifications as a result of these objections.

59


6.137 Further objections raised factual issues, and the Council has revised the Plan at the appropriate places. I need not comment further as these corrections have been made in the published Revised Deposit Plan.

6.138 According to the Plan, the grey sand deposit at Misson serves a particular niche which alluvial sand and gravel cannot meet. An objection seeks the delineation of the area of search provided for in Policy M6.11. I agree that the definition currently lacks precision, but the operations appear small in scale and moreover, the extent of the deposit in unknown. The area of search has been in existence from the previous Local Plan and I am not aware of any issues or problems which have arisen due to the lack of precision. Therefore, on balance, I favour continuing with the degree of definition as currently shown in the Plan, which would depend very much on identification of an economically workable deposit. Policy M6.11 would protect the environment from any potential harmful effects of working.

Recommendation


********************

OMISSION SITES: these are site which objections wish to see allocated for sand and gravel extraction in the Plan and which I have considered together.

6.140 have concluded that I shall not recommend the deletion of the proposed allocations at Bleasby, Gunthorpe, Rampton, Sturton le Steeple, and Misson (Finningley). The majority of the allocation at Lound has received planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. Therefore, as I accepted the future requirements sought in the Plan, it follows that there is no need for further land to be allocated, unless sites which were suggested in objections prove to be more suitable than those already proposed.

6.141 However, none of the objections represented that the land which was being promoted in a specific objection was superior to the allocations proposed in the Plan. In each case, the issue is whether to allocate the omission site in the Plan.

Para 6.83 BESTHORPE QUARRY FUTURE ASSESSMENT (Eastern and Southern Extensions)


Conclusions

6.142 Two sites at Besthorpe were suggested in the objection but neither was promoted in preference to the allocated sites in the Plan, and only if insufficient overall provision has been made for sand and gravel. Therefore, taking into account my earlier conclusions that the Plan has fulfilled its requirements for sand and gravel, I consider that there is no need for the additional sites at Besthorpe.

60


6.143 In any event, current reserves should be sufficient until 2013, 4 years after which there is intended to be a review of the Plan. Therefore, there is no requirement for the sites to be allocated at this stage. The Council accepted that the main reason not to include the sites as allocations in the Plan was that they would be premature. Indeed, the Council accepts that the eastern extension does not raise any issues which would suggest that it is unsuitable for mineral extraction. But I note that there are 3 SINCs which fall within the proposed areas, two in the southern area and one in the eastern area, and one MLA in the southern area, albeit with few current signs of a mature landscape. One of southern SINCs would not be removed and would lie outside the extraction area. Nevertheless, on the basis that normally SINCs are best left in situ, rather than managed in order to mitigate possible harm, I believe my conclusion not to support the inclusion of the sites is reinforced.

Recommendation


********************

FLASH FARM AVERHAM

Objection No. 1648 Latham Farms Ltd

Conclusions

6.145 The objection does not challenge the level of provision made in the Plan. Nor is the selection of sites for sand and gravel being challenged. The objection states that it is seeking to maintain the Averham site as a possible alternative should it be considered that one or more of the current allocations is environmentally unsuitable.

6.146 I have concluded that the Plan does meet the need for sand and gravel in accordance with advice in MPG6. I have also concluded not to reject the areas which have been proposed for allocation for sand and gravel in the Plan. Therefore, I conclude that I need not consider this site any further.

6.147 Nevertheless, I note that the degree of archaeological interest in the site is a very significant constraint and I also believe that that the narrow road system through Southwell would incur a significant increase in heavy lorry traffic if sand and gravel were to be taken towards Nottingham.

Recommendation

6.148 I recommend no modification to the Plan

********************

LITTLE CARLTON

Objection No. 1722 Aggregate Industries

61


Conclusions

6.149 The objection which seeks inclusion of this site as an allocation does not raise objections to other sites which have been allocated in the Plan. I have concluded that the Plan does meet the need for sand and gravel in accordance with advice in MPG6. I have also concluded not to reject the areas which have been proposed for allocation for sand and gravel in the Plan.

6.150 I do not dispute that eventually there will be a shortfall. It is inevitable given the continual demand for sand and gravel and the needs of the construction industry for raw materials for new buildings, roads, etc, and the maintenance of those buildings and other structures which already exist. However, MPG6 states that it is not the intention of the guidance note that MPAs should at the start of the plan period, make full provision for the maintenance of a landbank for the period beyond the plan period. Therefore, I do not consider that there is a compelling need to support this objection to include the Little Carlton site as an allocation in the Plan.

6.151 In any event, on a comparative basis, although most of the constraints identified in the sustainability appraisal would not be fatal to allocation, I believe that the potential impact on residential amenities at houses to the north and south of the area from operations, and at those properties to the south from traffic, put this site higher up the ranking of environmental impact than the major allocations at Gunthorpe and Sturton le Steeple. The impact on the landscape would be similar to most of the green field sites I have looked at during reporting on the objections to this Plan and any harmful visual impact could also be mitigated to a large extent. Nevertheless, both of the major allocations in the Plan are also more able to supply those local markets where there is a predicted shortfall.

Recommendation


******************** FOXHOLES FARM

Objection No. 1681 Ennstone Plc

Conclusions

6.153 The objection does not seek to replace an allocation in the Plan with the Foxholes Farm site. It was agreed that the allocation of the site depends on the acceptance of not meeting the need for sand and gravel properly or another objection or objections succeed and an allocation is rejected. In the absence of those two factors it was agreed that the objection would not seek the inclusion of the site.

6.154 I have concluded that the Plan does meet the need for sand gravel in accordance with advice in MPG6. I have also concluded not to reject the areas which have been proposed for allocation for sand and gravel in the Plan. Therefore, I conclude that I need not consider this site any further.

62


6.155 I note that the Council did not find that there were objections in principle to the allocation of the site from the point of view of many of the constraints normally found in association with mineral extraction. However, I note that there was concern expressed about the impact of noise from heavy goods vehicles on the route to the A1, which I would consider would be a relatively quiet road and which passes several residential properties. I support that view, especially for the Vicarage Lane properties and that, on a comparative basis having inspected all the sites proposed in and omitted from the Plan, is one reason why I believe this site is less suitable than those allocated.

Recommendation


********************

NEWINGTON & MISSON WEST

Objection No’s 1629 - 31, 1723, 1725, 2318 - 9 Hanson Quarry Products

Conclusions

6.157 I have concluded that the Plan does meet the need for sand and gravel in accordance with advice in MPG6. I have also concluded not to reject the areas which have been proposed for allocation for sand and gravel in the Plan. I have been using those factors as the major reasons why no more sites for sand and gravel should be allocated.

6.158 However, in this case, the significant restraints of the SSSI and the archaeological interest have been reassessed by the objector and the Council to the extent that the Council accepts that those particular issues can be dealt with satisfactorily. In my opinion, any cumulative impact which is perceived should be able to be overcome by a carefully controlled phased working and restoration scheme, which could also include the other nearby operations if possible. It also seems to me that traffic would continue as before, without improving but without causing added danger. I do not consider that other constraints would be so significant that they could not be overcome at the planning application stage.

6.159 In addition, I note the Council’s comment that had the site been considered environmentally acceptable when the Plan was being prepared, it would probably have been allocated. At only 1.3m – 1.5m tonnes in size, there is no significant change to the overall provision and, as the Council states, if the site is not worked as an extension, it would probably be sterilized. The area currently being worked is due to be exhausted by 2007, before the intended review of the Plan.

6.160 Therefore, I shall support the objection and recommend that the Plan should be modified by the allocation of the site shown for Newington as reduced to take account of the SSSI. If the recommendation is accepted, there would be consequent modifications to the text of the Plan and to Table 6.4.

63


Recommendation

6.161 I recommend the Plan is modified by the allocation of the Newington site sought for sand and gravel extraction, as altered to take account of the SSSI.

********************

CROMWELL SOUTH

Objection No. 1727 RMC Aggregates (UK) Ltd

Conclusions

6.162 I have concluded that the Plan does meet the need for sand and gravel in accordance with advice in MPG6. I have also concluded not to reject the areas which have been proposed for allocation for sand and gravel in the Plan. Part of the information which led me to conclude that the Plan meets the need is the amount of sand and gravel to be supplied from Cromwell. In its response to the objection, the Council stated that the reserves and forecast production rate have been slightly increased to 2.5 million tonnes and 200,000 tonnes per annum respectively since the publication of the Plan. Therefore, provided those estimates are soundly based, paragraph 6.77 of the Plan and tables in which references to Cromwell occur should be updated to show the new amounts.

6.163 The planned life of the quarry is currently about 12 years which would enable it to be active to at least 2017 were it to open next year. I consider that this is well within the period when the Plan would be reviewed and therefore the allocation at Cromwell South would be premature. In addition, I note particularly the presence of the archaeological interest in the south of the site. This is a further reason why it should not be allocated at this time.

Recommendation


********************

WIGSLEY

Objection No’s. 1708 Mr. Scott, 1709 Mr. Wilkinson

Conclusions

6.165 I have concluded that the Plan does meet the need for sand and gravel in accordance with advice in MPG6. I have also concluded not to reject the areas which have been proposed for allocation for sand and gravel in the Plan. Wigsley is not being argued as more suitable for sand and gravel extraction than the proposed allocations in the Plan.

64


6.166 The site initially suggested for allocation here has been revised to reduce some of the environmental impact it would have. Nevertheless it is unfavourably located to serve demands compared to the proposed allocations in the north of the county. In addition, there are some significant constraints due to the access to the site which are well documented in the correspondence from the highway authorities in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.

6.167 Therefore, due to the sufficiency of sand and gravel which has been identified in the Plan and the difficulty of access to the site, I shall not recommend a modification to the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

BOTANY BAY SUTTON


Conclusions

6.169 The Botany Bay omission site contains about 3 million tonnes of sand and gravel which it is predicted could be extracted at about 300,000 tonnes per year, which would then give a life of about 10 years.

6.170 The objection raised the issue of recent sales figures which show a fall in Sherwood Sandstone and rise in sand and gravel. However, I have concluded on that issue below and have accepted the Council’s figures and the overall way that the county’s apportionment has been met. Therefore, I have nothing further to add on this point.

6.171 The site is in the Idle Valley and the objection states that it is ideally located to serve the anticipated shortages which will occur with the depletion of nearby quarries. The Plan (para 6.46) states that if no further reserves are permitted, the 4 main quarries at Sutton and Lound and Misson will be exhausted by 2007. The Plan proposes to meet the shortfalls from Misson by allocating a small extension at Finningley. I have also recommended a small addition at Newington. However, the main shortfalls from Misson and Sutton & Lound are proposed to be met from the allocation at Sturton le Steeple.

6.172 It was agreed that the objection was not suggesting Botany Bay in place of Sturton le Steeple. I have recommended that objections seeking the deletion of Sturton le Steeple should not be supported and so it should remain in the Plan as an allocation. Moreover, it seems to me that should both Sturton le Steeple and Botany Bay be allocated at the same time, Table 6.4 of the Plan 2 illustrates that there would be a significant oversupply in the county generally over the Plan period, both in the overall amount provided and the annual production. Such oversupply is contrary to

65


sustainability objectives and reduces the urge to move away from primary land won sand and gravel to alternative materials.

6.173 There are relatively few constraints on mineral working from the site here. The Council accepted that issues of possible cumulative impact and archaeology were not insurmountable, but noted that the landscape at the site was not degraded as implied in the objection. I agree with the Council’s assessment. The landscape at the site is far from degraded and is attractive relatively level open countryside where mineral working would have just as much visual impact as the Sturton le Steeple allocation. The visual impact could be mitigated to a limited extent by advance planting, but it would take more than several years to have other than a marginal effect. Sand and gravel would be transported by road much the same as Sturton Le Steeple, except that the latter allocation has the potential to use barge transport on the River Trent.

6.174 The Council commented that the site should not be allocated now as it is not needed and should be looked at again at the end of the Plan period. I have little doubt that the site would be reassessed at the time of the next Review and it seems likely to me that its case for allocation would strengthen as alternative sources become depleted. Nevertheless, I do not support the objection seeking allocation in this Plan. Botany Bay may be well located to serve markets in Yorkshire and Humberside, but I favour the allocation at Sturton le Steeple due to the greater amount of sand and gravel which would be available given that both sites would be green field allocations and the possibility of using barge transport instead of road for the transport of some of the mineral.

Recommendation


********************

SCROOBY

Objection No. 1711 & 1726 Rotherham Sand and Gravel Ltd

Conclusions

6.176 I have concluded that the Plan meets the need for sand and gravel in accordance with advice in MPG6. I have also concluded not to reject the areas which have been proposed for allocation for sand and gravel in the Plan. I do not deny that the area suggested for allocation might prove acceptable for mineral working at the appropriate time. However, I agree with the Council that allocation now would be premature.

6.177 There may well be additional local demands arising for sand and gravel which are caused primarily by construction work at Finningley Airport and improvements to the M1 motorway, but if these arise, any planning application to extend the quarry into the Scrooby (Central) area can be determined on its merits. I do not support the objection and see no reason to modify the Plan as a result of it.

66


Recommendation


********************

CHAPTER 7: SHERWOOD SANDSTONE

POLICY M7.2 SHERWOOD SANDSTONE EXTRACTION IN UNALLOCATED LAND


Issues:- Whether planning permission should be granted outside allocated areas.

Conclusions

7.1 An objection has referred to the policy in the adopted Minerals Local Plan which enables sites outside the allocated areas to obtain planning permission if net environmental benefits would occur. Such a policy is suggested for this Plan as it is for sand and gravel and similar comments apply. The analysis which has occurred leading up to the proposals leads me to conclude that, subject to any comments I may have about the specific allocations and the sites which have been omitted, the Plan is fairly robust. If, due to the failure to permit land within allocated areas, or the failure to implement permissions, the sand and gravel landbank drops to less than 7 years, applications would be judged against Policy M7.1 and the environmental criteria outlined in the policies of the Plan. An objective of the Sustainability Appraisal is to enable sites to be identified and allocated which are the most sustainable. It follows that sites which perform less well in the appraisal are less sustainable. Accordingly, if a planning application is submitted for a site which is not allocated in the Plan, it should fail the sustainability test when compared to sites which are allocated in order for the landbank to be maintained. Permitting sites other than those allocated would be contrary to the aims of the Plan and contrary to advice in MPG 6 para 35 items (i) and (ii). Therefore, I do not support the objection and shall not recommend a modification of the Plan

Recommendation


********************

Para 7.40 BESTWOOD 2 FUTURE ASSESSMENT (Omission site)


Issues:- The extent of any allocation at the site.

Conclusions

67


7.3 The evidence received in response to the objection indicates that Bestwood 2 Quarry has reserves until about 2013 as a result of planning permission granted in 2001. The Council states that there appears to be the scope to deepen the quarry in order to release more mineral rather than laterally extend onto the site which is the subject of the objection. This has not been challenged by the objector. Such a deepening would extend the active life of the quarry to beyond the Plan period.

7.4 An extension as sought in the objection would encroach further into a SINC and would lead to extraction closer to residential properties. Neither of these two issues need be fatal to a planning application to extend should the need for the mineral exist. However, given the apparent potential to deepen the quarry combined with the stated intention of the Council to complete a review of the Plan by 2009, I do not agree that the site should be allocated for the extraction of Sherwood Sandstone.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M7.5 CARLTON FOREST SAND QUARRY ALLOCATION

Objection No. 97 Mr. Butt

Issue:- The environmental impact of quarrying at the site.

Conclusions

7.6 The Plan allocates 12.5ha for sand extraction at the site. The objection expresses concern due to the close proximity of the site to residential property, most of which appears to be caused by the landfill which is part of the restoration. Whether the 24 hour lighting referred to in the objection is part of the landfill operation or the mineral extraction is difficult to say as neither the objection nor the response give details. However, if a planning application is submitted, unnecessary light pollution should be one of the criteria against which it is judged and might form part of a package of planning conditions. Therefore, although sympathetic to the objection, I consider that the issues which arise are part of the existing planning permissions at the site, the conditions of which the planning authority should be able to enforce. Indeed, any existing deficiencies in the conditions may be able to be remedied during negotiations about a future planning application on land within the allocation. Accordingly, I shall not recommend any modification to the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

Para 7.70 SILICA SAND

68


Objection No. 1649 Mansfield Sand Co. Ltd

Issues:- The allocation of a new site if identified.

Conclusions

7.8 It would not be possible to add a site allocation until the Plan is reviewed, or unless I recommended one as a modification and I have no evidence to indicate where such an allocation might be. Nevertheless, I note that Policy M7.6 states that planning permission will be granted for silica sand extraction that seeks to maintain an appropriate landbank of permitted reserves subject to environmental and amenity considerations. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no disadvantage with an absence of an allocated area. A replacement quarry or extension should be permitted, if required, subject to the environmental tests mentioned in the Plan and elsewhere in the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

CHAPTER 8: LIMESTONE

Para 8.18 FUTURE LIMESTONE PROVISION

Objection No’s. 1702 Derbyshire CC, 1705 Derby CC

Issue:- Whether the landbank should be maintained beyond the Plan period by making an allocation at Nether Langwith Quarry.

Conclusions

8.1 The response of the Council to the objections indicates that the Nether Langwith Quarry has permitted reserves which should last until 2017. I accept that the lead time for the implementation of a hard rock quarry planning permission may be longer than in the case of sand and gravel. Nevertheless, the issue of new and highly expensive plant and machinery may not arise where an extension is concerned and so it is not as though the site is being brought into operation for the first time.

8.2 Therefore, with the reserves due to last about 3 years after the plan period and the intended review of the Plan being by 2009, I do not consider it necessary to seek an allocation in order to meet the requirement for a landbank. In any event, if it were judged that there were to be a shortage of limestone, any planning application to seek to make good the shortfall could be judged under Policy M8.1 of the Plan. Accordingly, I do not support the objections.

Recommendation


69


********************

CHAPTER 9: SECONDARY AND RECYCLED AGGREGATES

GENERAL COMMENTS

Objection No’s. 475 UK Coal, 672 CPRE

Issues:- Whether to include a new policy for the re-use of coal spoil.

Conclusions

9.1 I agree with the objection that aggregates should be recycled where possible and that colliery spoil has a significant local role to play. This is already recognised in paras 9.6 to 9.8 of the Plan. However, the objection refers to the lack of a policy for encouraging the use of dry dirt discard directly from coal preparation plants. It seems to me that if the coal preparation plant has the necessary planning permission to operate, the need for a policy to encourage the use of the discard from it is unnecessary. Nevertheless, as the distinction is made between colliery spoil and dry discard, both of which would be beneficial to use as a secondary aggregate, I shall recommend that para 12.34 of the Plan is expanded to refer to dry discard.

9.2 The remaining objection was dealt with in Section 6 concerning the use of secondary materials in meeting the requirements for sand and gravel.

Recommendation

9.3 I recommend that the Plan should be modified by the addition of “and dry dirt discard” to para 12.34 after “…colliery spoil…” in the first sentence.

********************

Para 9.14 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

Objection No’s. 391 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, 510 RMC Aggregates (UK) Ltd

Issue:- Whether to include a policy promoting the use of secondary and recycled aggregates.

Conclusions

9.4 I note that para 9.14 of the Plan has been revised to take into account the need to encourage the use of recycled aggregates and I do not consider that there needs to be a policy to repeat what is essentially stated in the reasoned justification.

9.5 A Waste Local Plan is the more appropriate vehicle for polices for aggregate recycling plants and I see that Policies W5.7 and 5.8 of the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan deal with them. An objection points out that Mineral

70


Local Plans in two other counties include policies on recycling aggregates but, as stated in the Council’s response, there were no Waste Local Plans in place in those two counties at the time. Therefore, I do not support the objections.

Recommendation


********************

CHAPTER 10: GYPSUM

Paras 10.6 & 10.7 OPENCAST EXTRACTION OF THE NEWARK GYPSUM

Objection No’s. 122-3 Mr& Mrs Harrington, 673-4 CPRE

Issues:- Blasting and the amounts of overburden at gypsum mines

Conclusions

10.1 I agree with the objections that ground transmitted vibration can be a problem and that the location and orientation of the various affected strata should be assessed before planning permission is given for extraction of gypsum and, indeed, any other mineral. However blasting is dealt with in paras 3.28 to 3.30 of the Plan and I see no reason to modify Chapter 10 to take into account matters which are recognised in the blasting section.

10.2 The subject of the large amounts of overburden is recognised in para 10.7 of the Plan and I do not accept that there is a beneficial reason to modify the Plan any further to emphasise the point.

Recommendation


********************

Para 10.11 RECLAMATION OF GYPSUM WORKINGS

Objection No’s. 124 Mr & Mrs Harrington, 675 CPRE

Issues:- Trees/shrubs along gypsum outcrop near Newark and restoration conditions.

Conclusions

10.4 The objection states that there used to be numerous willow and ash trees in the Cotham area and I have no reason to disagree. However, I see no way in which the Plan can address that issue other than in reclamation schemes which are already provided for in Chapter 4. A comment is made about the need to find an alternative to high grade gypsum, but the Council in their response indicate that at present there are

71


none. I have no evidence to dispute that claim. I agree that restoration conditions should normally be attached to planning permissions to extract gypsum and other minerals, where appropriate, and subject to the advice in planning conditions in Circular 11/95, but I do not consider that the Plan should be modified to say so. This is a matter for the control of development when planning applications are submitted.

Recommendation


********************

Para 10.13 SOURCES OF INFORMATION


Issues:- Data on gypsum production; use of DSG; need for a policy on the extraction of gypsum from non allocated sites.

Conclusions

10.6 I note the Council’s response that the published data on gypsum production is limited due to the monopoly in the UK of British Gypsum and agree that the Plan cannot resolve the lack of statistics or any comments on their objectivity. The Plan recognises the possible impact of DSG at paras 10.17 and in Panel 10.1. The extent that it can provide an alternative form of supply would be taken into account in any planning application to extract gypsum. I do not consider that a policy to deal with planning applications for gypsum outside allocated sites is necessary in the Plan. Gypsum is unlike sand and gravel and other aggregates where landbanks are encouraged. Any planning applications can be judged under Policy M3.1 and other relevant policies in Chapter 3. Therefore I do not support the objection.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M10.2 GYPSUM MINING SAFEGUARDING AT COSTOCK

Objection No. 926 Mrs. Brown

Issues:- The extent of the safeguarding area at Costock.

Conclusions

10.8 Policy M10.2 does not automatically preclude all surface development, only that development which would materially prejudice the exploitation of the gypsum resource. I note that whereas DSG appears to be an alternative to gypsum for certain applications and the supply of it may be currently increasing, its future is uncertain.

72


There is no doubt in my mind that the gypsum beneath the site is an important mineral resource which supplies a local plasterboard manufacturer. Therefore the mineral deposit is a resource of significance which should not be sterilised unnecessarily.

10.9 Minerals can only be worked where they occur and once sterilised by surface development, it would be most unlikely that they would be exploitable. The Council has commented that there is a strip of land about 40m wide which separates the northern most edge of the safeguarding area from the Costock to East Leake Road, which could allow for some development opportunities. The acceptability of non mineral development is not before me or a matter for this Plan, but this strip is not covered by Policy M10.2 and so the safeguarding issue does not apply.

10.10 I agree with the objection that Policy M2.1 could also apply to development which could prejudice the future working of gypsum, but I consider that the delineation of land on the map in the Plan under Policy M10.2 assists in the control of development. Nevertheless, given the existence of Policy M2.1 and the extent of the safeguarded area, I consider that it would be reasonable to relax the northern boundary as sought in the objection. The consequence would be that there is a core area covered by Policy M10.2 and the area north of the yellow line on Fig 2 page 4 of PoE/Brown/926/1 covered by Policy M2.1 in which possibly prejudicial development would be judged on a case by case basis. Therefore, to that extent I support the objections.

Recommendation

10.11 I recommend that the Plan be modified by the deletion from Policy M10.2 and the map which accompanies it of the area as described in para 10.10 above.

********************

POLICY M10.3 BANTYCOCK ALLOCATION


Issues:- The inclusion of Shire Dyke SINC.

Conclusions

10.12 The Shire Dyke SINC has been included in the Bantyock allocation area but only about 60m is within it and about 70m of the SINC extends along one boundary of the allocation. As the Council states, the allocation is not necessarily coincident with extraction or development. Any planning permission granted would have to take into account Policy M.3.20.

10.13 Nevertheless, I agree with the Council that reference should be made to the SINC in the text supporting the allocation. Therefore, I support Further Proposed Change (FPC) 20 which would insert (d) a reference to the Shire Dyke SINC and the need to take it into account in any planning application.

Recommendation

73


10.14 I recommend that the Plan be modified by FPC 20. ********************

CHAPTER 11: CLAY

Paras 11.15 – 11.18 CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE CLAY DEMAND

Objection No’s. 929 HJ Banks & Co. Ltd, 1643 Hanson Brick Ltd

Issues:- Whether to have a landbank for brick clay; refer to clay for engineering and other purposes.

Conclusions

11.1 An objection seeks a 25 year landbank as recommended in the Government report entitled “Brick Clays: Issues for Planning”. The report recommends that guidance should emphasise the need for an integrated long term approach involving a landbank of permitted reserves of at least 25 years in order to maintain a security of supply of brick clays. The objection states that not only do new brickworks require a long term approach but existing brickworks have to be maintained and may well require capital investment to either upgrade or replace components of the brick making process.

11.2 The Plan notes the recommendation of the report about the 25 year landbank but, as stated in the Council’s response, this is not government policy. Indeed, even if the recommendation had become government advice, because there are only two active brick clay pits, it may not have been possible to meet the consequent requirement due to equally weighty environmental constraints. Therefore, I agree with the Council, that, although, the Brick Clay report is a material consideration, there is no current government advice that there should be a 25 year landbank and so I shall not support the objection and shall not recommend a modification to the Plan on account of it.

11.3 I do not dispute the various uses of clay to which reference is made in the objection. Nevertheless, the Plan includes a brief statement at para 11.13 about the demand for higher quality “facing and engineering” bricks and also considers the future demand for brick clay at paras 11.15 – 11.18. I consider that in the interests of brevity there is no need to add further references to demand for clay. I do not consider that engineering clay interests are prejudiced by not supporting the objection because planning applications outside allocations would be still be judged on Policy M11.3. Relevant information can be brought forward at that point.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M11.1 & Paras 11.19 – 11.24 KIRTON ALLOCATION AND OMISSION SITE

74


Objection No’s. 49 Kirton PC, 1644 Hanson Brick

Plus 27 objections from local residents: See Appendix 1

Para 11.24c Revision R140

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2119 Kirton PC, 2192 Hanson Brick Ltd

Para 11.24d Revision R141

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2193 Hanson Brick Ltd, 2120 Kirton PC


Revision R151 PROPOSALS MAP INSET 14

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2121 Kirton PC


Issues:- Whether to have an allocation and, if so, the extent; transport of clay; material for restoration.

Conclusions

11.5 The Plan proposes an allocation of 15 ha of land to the north of Kirton Brickworks for clay extraction. One objection seeks a larger area, in effect, an omission site. The other objections are to the allocation itself as proposed in the Plan.

11.6 The Plan states that there are two types of clay: red-firing and cream-firing, with the former accounting for about 90% of demand. The Plan further states that reserves of cream clay should be sufficient until at least 2030. It is estimated that reserves of red clay will be exhausted by about 2009. In my opinion, and as referred to in the Plan, the two main environmental constraints on a possible extension into where economically workable clay is known to exist are the proximity to Kirton village and landscape.

The omission site

11.7 The site which is the subject of the objection has been reduced but, nevertheless, one isolated property, “Hedgelands” would practically abut the north eastern corner of the site. In addition, the nearest part of the Kirton built up area would be about 250m away which may begin to impact on the living conditions of residents from noise and dust. Walkers along footpath No.4 would be able to see the western end of the workings but, in my opinion, there would not be such a severe impact that the operations would cause a conflict with users of the path. Therefore, I consider that the inclusion of the omission site in the Plan would lead to an unacceptable impact on

75


the residential amenities of the occupants of “Hedgelands” which planning conditions would be unlikely to overcome.

11.8 So far as landscape and visual impact is concerned, the ridge between the suggested allocation and the village should not be broken by any workings in the suggested allocation area. Nevertheless, the visual impact on “Hedgelands” would be severe. There would also be a significant impact on the visual amenity from the Kirton Road which would adjoin the allocation. In addition it would be likely that Cross Wong Lane, albeit a cul de sac, and the hedgerow trees which adjoin it, and Golden Hill Lane would be lost. There would also be a considerable expanse of view of workings from the A6075 near the top of the hill at Prior’s Park which would remain despite any reasonable attempts at screening. Although 8% of MLA 47 would be lost, there seems little evidence remaining of the qualities leading to its initial definition, other than the hedges alongside the lanes, and I do not consider that the presence of the MLA is a sound reason to reject the omission site.

11.9 However, all in all, despite the economic benefits due to enabling more clay to be worked, I consider that the impact on the residential amenities of “Hedgelands” and the visual impact from the Kirton Road and the A6075 are sufficient grounds for me not to support the objection. Therefore, I shall not recommend the Plan to be modified to include the suggested omission site.

The allocation

11.10 The objections to the allocation are based on issues of the long term supply of clay; uncertainty of the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) process; landscape; the ancient highway; and, the loss of the use of the mineral railway line.

11.11 The Council has commented that it is widely acknowledged that extensions to existing workings are generally preferable to new operations. This might be said to be an oversimplification but, nevertheless, I agree that, in my experience, a new green field mineral working normally results in more objections from an environmental point of view than an extension. However, I shall deal with the objections to the allocation on their merits without assuming that just because it would form an extension to an existing operation it would automatically be preferable to a new site.

11.12 The Council states that the allocation at Kirton would enable the reserves to last to the end of the Plan period. I agree with the objections which emphasise the long term nature of brickworks operations and the need to consider more remote supply options at some stage. This situation is not unique to brick clay. It may even happen to sand and gravel and crushed rock operations. Nevertheless, having regard to the extent of fixed investment at the manufacturing plant, I consider that it is sound planning to assess whether an extension as envisaged in the allocation in the Plan is acceptable. I agree that, notwithstanding the extent of the Mercia Mudstone deposit, if the allocation raises issues which I do not consider could be reconciled in the course of the submission of and evaluation of a planning application to extract clay from within it, the Plan should be modified accordingly.

11.13 I agree with an objection that sites allocated in minerals local plans should show where mineral extraction could or is most likely to take place (MPG1). One of

76


the main advantages of this is that a good degree of certainty is provided to applicants, landowners and the general public. However, it is not an automatic assumption that planning permission would be granted for mineral extraction in this or any other allocated area. Firstly, planning permission presupposes an application in which the environmental issues are dealt with satisfactorily. Secondly, where an adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies, an application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (PPG1). However, in reality, I would expect that, subject to an appropriate planning application being made for clay extraction, with all the environmental safeguards specific to the site, planning permission would be likely to be granted. After all, that reflects one of the main purposes of the Plan.

11.14 I agree with an objection that there are matters of judgement in deciding whether to allocate the site and many of those issues are covered by policies in the Plan on which the Council has appeared to come to a view already. However, as stated above it is not certain that planning permission would inevitably be granted irrespective of the quality of the application.

11.15 Reference is made in the objection to EIA. Whether any application in the allocation is subject to the EIA procedure is not for me or the Plan to consider. It depends on the size and nature of the application. However, whether it is or is not subject to EIA will not necessarily make the application any more acceptable or unacceptable. EIA offers a systematic method of preparation and appraisal of an application, but the same issues might well be dealt with in the same way without an EIA. Any application would still have to comply with the policies of the Plan.

11.16 However, I do not accept that the Council has misjudged the effects on the MLA. In fact, I consider that they may well have overestimated them, although there would be visual harm due to the loss of hedgerows along Golden Hill Lane. In any event, the MLA fields are not within the allocation. In my opinion, the view from the A6075 is not so high that a large expanse of open quarry floor would be visible. A balance would have to be struck between the height of any bund and any landscaping on it and the visual effect such a shape would have. There would be visual impact, but not so great that the allocation should be deleted. Operations may be visible but that is not the same as causing significant harm, either to the landscape or to visual amenity. I agree that the effects of the operations would be felt by people using footpath No.4. However, I do not accept that this is a strong objection to the allocation as, in my experience, many rural footpaths pass near to mineral workings and other commercial and industrial developments in the countryside without significantly diminishing the value of the leisure experience.

11.17 I do not consider that there would be any significant harm to the visual impact as seen from Kirton Village or from “Hedgelands”. I agree that Golden Hill Lane may well be lost but, to a limited extent, this may be remedied by alternative hedgerow planting. The replacement would be of a lesser quality but, on balance, I would not recommend the deletion of the allocation for this reason alone. In my view, remedial measures would be likely to emerge in the course of the consideration of any planning application. The issue of the ownership of Golden Hill Lane is not a planning consideration.

77


11.18 On the evidence before me, I do not consider that there are any nature conservation interests which would be significantly harmed by the allocation. So far as the living conditions of residents of Kirton are concerned, I believe that the distance between the possible operations within the allocation and dwellings would be sufficiently great for noise and dust not to be a significant constraint subject to the normal assessment and controls at the planning application stage. There is no substantive evidence that subsidence or stability would cause harm to nearby land. In my opinion, any restoration issues for land in this allocation are best dealt with at the planning application stage.

11.19 The mineral railway line forms the south eastern boundary of the allocation, but there is no reason why extraction from within the allocation area should affect it. A means of crossing over or under the railway line could be found. I see no reason why the line should have to be dismantled.

11.20 Therefore, I do not support the objections to the allocation and shall not recommend that it should be deleted.

Restoration

11.21 The Proposals Map indicates an area which is allocated for use, if necessary, in the restoration of the quarry. Paragraph 11.24 of the Plan states that land from immediately west of the site should be used, if on-site materials are insufficient. The implication of this part of the Plan is that material, perhaps low quality clay, would be excavated in order to produce a better profile for the finished state of the land. However, it appears to me that the allocation is merely a possible extension to the overall extraction operation, whatever its purpose. I consider that such an extension would make it more likely that the hedges alongside Cross Wong Lane would be lost. In addition, the land to the west of the lane would be significantly nearer to Kirton village and to “Hedgelands”, with increasing risk of disturbance from excavation plant and machinery. Moreover, the inclusion of the words “if necessary” on the Proposals Map do not offer the certainty which is sought in Local Plans. Therefore, I agree with the objections seeking the deletion of the area and shall recommend an appropriate modification to the Plan.

Recommendation

11.22 I recommend that the Plan is modified by the deletion of Revision 151 from the Proposals Map and by the deletion of the final sentence of paragraph 11.24 (d).

********************

POLICY M11.2 DORKET HEAD FUTURE PROVISION OMISSION SITE EASTERN EXTENSION – AREA OF SEARCH AT BILSTHORPE

Objection No’s. 1679, 1718 Ibstock Building Products Ltd

Issue:- Whether to allocate additional land at Dorket Head for clay extraction; whether to identify Bilsthorpe as an Area of Search for clay extraction.

78


Conclusions

11.23 In support of the objection seeking additional allocated land for clay extraction at Dorket Head, the capital intensive nature of the industry was emphasised. I agree that this is the case and perhaps there is a similarity with other industrial minerals such as china and ball clay and cement. I also agree with the evidence which indicates the efficiency and sustainability of the brickworks at Dorket Head.

11.24 The Plan refers to the report “Brick Clay: Issues for Planning” and notes the existence of the recommendation for a 25 year landbank. I consider that this is an accurate reference and reflection of the status of the report. It is not yet government advice and so I do not feel bound to give the recommendation much weight. Indeed, were it to have been government advice at the time of the preparation of the Plan, I believe that the Council would have treated the supply of and demand for clay very differently. Consequently, even if the recommendation for a 25 year landbank had become official government advice during the period after the closure of the inquiry and prior to the completion of the report, I would have advised the Council to consider the ramifications at the earliest opportunity when the Plan is reviewed. Therefore, I do not consider that the 25 years landbank recommendation in the Brick Clay report significantly adds to the case in favour of the objection.

11.25 I note that the clay resource within the site will be exhausted by 2017. This is probably about 12 years from the adoption date of the Plan and 3 years beyond the Plan period. The evidence in support of the objection suggests that planning permission for the extension within the proposed allocation would have to be granted by 2012 in order to not to disrupt the mineral extraction operations and the restoration by landfill. I do not disagree with that view. It would also be helpful to be able to plan with certainty for any substantial investment in production capacity at either the existing site or, indeed, at a replacement site. Therefore, there are strong reasons for allocating the area sought in the objection.

11.26 Nevertheless, the suggested allocation area would include about 8 to 12 ha of MLA. Although the features which led to the initial definition of the MLA may have diminished over time, the dumble valley form still exists together with some hedgerows. In addition, I consider that the visual impact of operations in the allocated area would impinge significantly on the views from the residential properties along the edge of the built up area to the south and south east. The Council defined the impact as moderately adverse. I do not disagree with that assessment. The possible noise impact of operations has not been assessed or commented on by the Council, but judging by the position of the properties relative to the possible angle of the face there could be an issue of impact on residential amenities to consider. Moreover, the restoration of the site and whether it should be used as an extension to the landfill operation, would be an issue to resolve.

11.27 However, in my opinion, the advantages of maximising the use of the land around the brickworks and so avoiding the importation of clay from a green field site, or the relocation of the brickworks to a totally new site and foregoing the return from capital investment, lead me to conclude that it would not be appropriate for the Plan to state categorically in Policy M11.2 that “Proposals to extend Dorket Head will not be

79


permitted…”. In addition, there are sound operational reasons why, if extraction is to take place in the area which is the subject of the objection it should be enabled to maximise the use of the clay and to allow the works to conduct its business efficiently. Therefore, I would prefer to provide for a situation where a planning application to extract clay from the disputed area is not fettered by a development plan policy which states that it should be refused.

11.28 Yet I am not persuaded that the allocation should be included in a modified Plan. As the Council rightly indicates, and as the Plan now states, there may be alternative resources available remote to Dorket Head which could be worked with an environmental cost which would be lower than extraction in the possible eastern extension. The operational benefits of working the eastern extension would also enter the balance.

11.29 If a planning application were to be submitted for an eastern extension, it is highly likely that an EIA would also be prepared, which would identify alternatives examined. Therefore, the process would examine the merits of extraction from within the eastern allocation area against other possible locations. These alternatives may well include Belle Eau Park at Bilshorpe. I would not wish to prejudice any consideration of alternatives and so, for that reason, would not wish to see Bilsthorpe identified as an area of search, or as an allocation. The extent of the deposit from which the clay is won appears to be so extensive that I am not convinced that Belle Eau Park and the possible eastern allocation are the only two alternatives which merit comparative examination.

11.30 Accordingly, I also consider that in the face of the environmental constraints within and around the possible eastern extension, it should not be included as an allocation in the Plan. Instead, I shall recommend a modification to Policy M11.2 which would set the scene for consideration of a planning application at Dorket Head, should one be made before the review of the Plan. Any planning application would be considered against all the other policies of the Plan, such as in Chapter 3, so it would be unnecessary to repeat them in Policy M11.2. As a consequence of adopting the recommendation, the text would also require modification.

Recommendation

11.31 I recommend that the Plan be modified by (i) the deletion of the first sentence of Policy M11.2 and the substitution of “Proposals to extend Dorket Head clay pit should take into account the environmental constraints at the site, the operational benefits to be gained by phased working and restoration and the likelihood of alternative locations offering a lesser environmental impact.” The remaining sections of the Policy should remain as they are; (ii) the deletion of “… is likely to …from para 11.27a and the substitution of “…may…”; and (iii), the deletion of the last three sentences from para 11.27b and the substitution of “Nevertheless, it is accepted that there are operational advantages to be gained from extending the Dorket Head clay pit in an easterly direction which have to be balanced against the impact on the environment which also includes the advantage of not needing to import clay from a remote site, should the brickworks remain.”

********************

80


Paras 11.28 – 11.29 BELLE EAU PARK OMISSION SITE

Objection No. 928 HJ Banks & Co Ltd

Issue:- Whether to include the site as an allocation.

Conclusions

11.32 An objection suggests that land at Belle Eau Park should be allocated for clay extraction. The Council does not deny that there is a clay resource underlying the site. Indeed a planning permission for clay extraction there has only recently expired. However, the existing reserves at Dorket Head and at Kirton, including the allocation at Kirton, are sufficient to ensure the continuity of the supply of clay for the period of the Plan.

11.33 I do not deny that the clay from the Belle Eau Park site could be put to a variety of uses, but a major factor against this allocation now is that, if permitted, it would be a remote site which would involve the transport of clay over public roads to a manufacturing plant at a factory. This would involve additional heavy goods vehicle traffic and would be totally contrary to the aims of sustainability. I agree that there could be a sequence of operations to enable advance planting to be carried out and to mature at Kirton, but that is not a good reason, in my opinion, to recommend adding the allocation at Belle Eau Park.

11.34 I accept that the overall provision of clay may not match the recommendation to have a 25 year landbank which was made in the report “Brick Clays: Issues for Planning.” I have concluded above on that report. It is not yet government advice and I do not feel bound by it and have given it little weight.

11.35Whether a planning application to extract clay from the site is pursued before the Plan is reviewed or whether a review of the Plan allocates the site is not before me. I note the claim in the objection that other than factors of Transport and Community/Liveability, the remaining impacts would be either minor or insignificant. However, even if that is the case, the transport issue and the introduction of mineral extraction into a green field site where there is no such activity weighs heavily against the allocation. I also agree with the general aim to provide a long term supply of clay, but not necessarily here and not at this time. It should be revisited at the Review of the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

Para 11.27 - 11.27B Revision R142 DORKET HEAD

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2105 Mr. Kesson, 2166 BAND, 2195 HJ Banks,

81


2321 Ibstock Brick Ltd

Paras 11.28 – 11.30 Revision R143 BELLE EAU PARK

Subsequent Objection No’s. 2106 Mr. Kesson, 2167 BAND, 2322 Ibstock Brick Ltd

Issue:- Whether to refer to Bilsthorpe; use of the “medium term” in para 11.27b.

Conclusions

11.37 The Plan refers to Bilsthorpe as a potential long term source of clay. The Plan also states that it is unclear whether these represent the most suitable options within the extensive Mercia Mudstone. It may well be that the site has been identified due to the involvement of another operating company, but that is immaterial. The Plan appears to be factually accurate; it is not misleading and so I do not support the objections seeking deletion of the reference.

11.38 Other objections seek the deletion of the reference to the lapsed planning permission at Belle Eau Park, Bilsthorpe, but as it is a matter of fact, the Plan is not inaccurate or misleading. Therefore, I do not support the objections. In my opinion, neither of the references to Bilsthorpe or the area misrepresent the position nor give an undue emphasis to that aspect of the Plan.

11.39 I consider that the use of the phrase “…medium term…” in the last sentence of para 11.27b is accurate, although I accept that it is a matter of interpretation. I do not consider that the Plan is misleading and I do not support the objection. I have dealt with the 25 year landbank issue above.

11.40An objection seeks the addition of Belle Eau Park to the list of Consultation Areas referred to in para 2.14 of the Plan, but as the Plan does not contain a list of sites, I cannot comment on the desirability or not of the addition. I can only recommend modifications by way of additions to or deletions from to the Plan.

Recommendation

11.41 I recommend no modifications to the Plan other than in paragraph 11.31 above in response to other objections.

******************** CHAPTER 12: COAL

GENERAL COMMENTS

Objection No’s 609 Greasley PC, 1652 Coal Authority

Issues:- Whether to include a new policy prohibiting open cast coal extraction; developers should remove shallow coal prior to development.

82


Conclusions

12.1 Objections sought a new policy or an amendment to Policy M12.7 which would prohibit open cast coal extraction from the Green Belt, open countryside and agricultural land. However, such a policy would be contrary to government advice in MPG1 and MPG3. For example, as the Council states, mineral extraction may be acceptable in the Green Belt subject to the various tests in PPG2, one of which is the effect on openness. The same arguments apply to objections seeking no open cast coal development in coal restraint areas and I have recommended modifications below which make the Plan consistent with para 8 of MPG3. Therefore, I do not support the objections.

12.2 The prior extraction of coal is dealt with in Chapter 2 at para 2.12. Policy M2.1 deals with non mineral development and is not really applicable. Nevertheless, I do not consider that a specific policy is called for about prior extraction and shall not recommend a modification to the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M12.1 COAL DEVELOPMENT

Objection No’s 484 RSPB, 546 NWT, 638 GOEM, 679 CPRE

Para 12.6 Revision R144 FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

Subsequent Objection No’s 2064 UK Coal, 2068 Network Rail, 2128 English Heritage, 2142 GOEM, 2293 UK Coal, 2316 NWT

REVISION R145 POLICY M12.1 COAL DEVELOPMENT

Subsequent Objection No’s 2062 CPRE, 2143 GOEM, 2253 Miss. E.M. Mackie, 2294 UK Coal, 2317 NWT

Issues:- Whether clause (b) reflects the correct balance; need refer to SSSIs; deletion of clause (b); apply (c) to Green Belts; deep mine coal policy; benefits of moving materials by rail; protection of nationally designated sites; plan should reflect para 8 of MPG3; delete term “environmental pollution”; use phrase “clearly outweighed” not “offset”.

Conclusions

12.4 There are several objections to Policy M12.1 as it has been revised. However, in my opinion, the Policy does not now reflect government advice in MPG3. The original policy as written prior to the Revision was in my view a clear reflection of

83


that advice. Therefore, in order to comply with existing government advice as expressed in para 8 of MPG3, I shall recommend that the Plan is modified by the deletion of Revision R145 and the restoration of the policy as it was drafted, including the reference to the Green Belt at clause (c). The addition of a policy to apply the latter Green Belt test to all non Green Belt land would not be appropriate as the test would be contrary to the aims of current government guidance in MPG3.

12.5 Revision 144 includes the need to take into account the effect on SSSIs but I am not convinced that it is accurate to state that SSSIs could be lost where local and community benefits outweigh the value of these sites. This appears to set aside the assessment procedure and issues of compensatory measures described in PPG9 which are particularly rigorous. Therefore, I shall recommend the deletion of that sentence. The relevant policies in Chapter 3 deal with nature conservation interests, including SINCs. It would be duplication at the best, and risk being misleading at the worst, to repeat or summarise the tests again in this section of the Plan.

12.6 The deletion of R145 would bring the local and community benefits back into the balancing equation accurately and can be used to assess open cast and deep mine coal extraction proposals. I consider that no further reference is necessary to the importance of existing deep mines. It is self evident. Extensions to deep mines may have less of an environmental impact, but it need not be so, depending on the extent of spoil and the disposal methods. Therefore, I shall not recommend that there should be any comment about extensions being preferable, or offering possibly less of an impact. I also do not consider that the policy needs to list all of the possible criteria which should be taken into account when dealing with an application to extract deep mine coal. No such distinction is made in MPG3.

12.7 The movement of mineral or mineral waste by rail is supported in Policy M3.15. In the interest of the brevity of the Plan, I consider that no further reference is necessary. Such movement would be an advantage when considering planning applications for coal development, but not to the exclusion of other factors, and it depends on the details of the particular case how much weight rail access should carry.

12.8 I agree with the Council that local and community benefits are unlikely to override or outweigh nationally designated sites. Policies in Chapter 3 set out the way in which the various environmental designations would be treated in the assessment of a planning application. I do not consider that the Plan needs any additional explanation.

12.9 I agree with the objection which seeks a compatibility with MPG3 para 8. I have already concluded that Policy M12.1 should be amended. In order to be consistent with para 8 of MPG3 and the policy there should be modifications to para 12.6 of the Plan (Revision R144). (See recommendation below)

12.10 The objection seeking the deletion of the term “environmental pollution” has been dealt with by my conclusions about para 8 MPG3, as has the objection seeking the avoidance of the word “offset” in criterion (b).

Recommendation

84


12.11 I recommend that the Plan should be modified by (i) the deletion of Revision R145 to Policy M12.1; (ii) the deletion from para 12.6 (R144) of the Plan of “offset” and the substitution of “outweighed”, (iii) the deletion from para 12.6 (R144) of the sentence which begins “In every case, ….acceptable levels.”… (iv) the deletion of the sentence “Designated sites ….value of these sites”.; and (v) the substitution of the penultimate sentence from the FPC 19 to para 12.6 which would become “The protection of designated … Chapters 3 and 4.”

********************

POLICY M12.2 NEW DEEP COAL MINES


Issue:- Include reference to lighting.

Conclusions

12.12 A reference to lighting is included in para 3.15 and I do not consider that it is appropriate for reasons of brevity to add a further reference in this part of the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

POLICY M12.6 REWORKING OF COLLIERY SPOIL TIPS

Objection No. 1642 Ogden Group of Companies

Para 12.31 Revision R147 REWORKING OF COLLIERY SPOIL TIPS

Subsequent Objection No. 2080 Ogden Group of Companies

Issues:- Include a reference to sustainable development; emphasise benefits of tip washing.

Conclusions

12.14 References to sustainable development are contained in Chapter 2 and specifically in general Policy M2.1a. Therefore, I consider it is unnecessary to make another reference in Chapter 12 to reworking colliery spoil tips. The benefit of the recovery of coal from processing spoil is mentioned in para 12.31 Revision R147. Further references are unnecessary in the interests of the brevity of the Plan. Moreover, considering the number of such operations in the County, additional references would tend to place too great an emphasis on an activity of such limited occurance.

85


Recommendation


********************

POLICY M12.7 OPENCAST COAL RESTRAINT AREAS

Objection No’s. 548 NWT, 571-2 Ashfield DC, 608 Greasley PC, 682 CPRE

Revision R157 PROPOSALS MAP INSET 15f


Issues:- The identification of sites covered by the policy; prohibition of coal extraction from restraint and other areas; the degree of protection offered by this policy compared to Policy M12.1.

Conclusions

12.16 The open cast coal restraint maps were updated from District Local Plans and it is apparent that the maps will become out of date as new plans are published and adopted. Therefore, I am content for the maps to reflect the latest factual position as at the time of the next publication of the Plan, at the proposed modifications stage, provided that there can be no dispute on the facts.

12.17 I can quite understand the reluctance of the Council to include all known map based information and also their wish to be selective and only illustrate the most important and significant areas of environmental importance in the opencast coal part of the County. Accordingly, I agree with the decision not to include the SINCs and LNRs on the maps, or indeed Conservation Areas.

12.18 I have dealt with the prohibition of coal extraction either from within coal restraint areas or from other areas generally in para 12.1 above.

12.19 I agree with the Council that it is important to emphasise the constraint areas in the coalfield, even though the policy seeks to duplicate the tests set out under Policy M12.1. Therefore, I do not agree that the Plan should be modified as sought by an objection.

Recommendation

12.20 I recommendation no modification to the Plan.

********************

CHAPTER 13: OIL, COALBED METHANE AND MINE GAS

POLICY M13.7 RECLAMATION OF OIL AND METHANE SITES

86



Issue:- Whether to restore to original use.

Conclusions

13.1 I agree with the objection that it may be preferable to seek a restored use which offers an environmental gain rather than the original use. However, I also agree with the Council that this might only arise in limited circumstances and may then be treated as a “material consideration” in the assessment of a planning application. Therefore, although I agree with the sentiments of the objection, I do not accept that it justifies a modification of the Plan.

Recommendation


********************

PROPOSALS MAPS

Objection No. 791 English Heritage, 393 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Issue:- Show SSSIs, SINCS, RIGs, LNRs on proposals maps.

Conclusions

14.1 Although showing all the possible constraints and designations on the Proposals Maps would maximise the amount of information available, it would be duplicating material already held in map form. I agree with the Council that, where appropriate, significant areas or sites of restraint could be shown, but not the multitude of nature conservation designations, or Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings etc, which would just clutter the Map base. The primary purpose of these Maps and this Plan is not to publicise items dealt with by other Plans.

14.2 I note that objection no. 393 has been accommodated by Revisions R148 and R113 and have no further comment to make.

Recommendation


********************

87

Nottinghamshire Minera

Paragraph Reference

Policy Reference

Rep No

1695 615

1.5(c) 2122

1.21 360 1.21 644 1.21 2135

2.5 361 2.5 767 2.5 621

2.5(i) 2013

M2.1a 2323

M2.1a 2005

2.6 628 2.15 & 2.16 2207

2.15 & 2.16 2136

2.15 & 2.16 2123

646 3.1 647 3.1 1594 3.1 2017

3.5 617

3.5 2018

M3.1 648

M3.2 1633 M3.3 589 M3.3 650

3.19 591 3.19 652 3.21 592

Panel 3.1 2115

Panel 3.1 2296

Panel 3.1 2108

M3.5 653 3.29 2023

M3.6 362 3.36 2124

3.36 2001

3.36 2125

3.37 1609 M3.8 1731 M3.9 363

M3.10 656 3.53 364 3.54 365

M3.14 366 3.55 2297

3.57&3.58 2328

M3.15 939 M3.15 367 M3.15 685

Subsequent Submissions

POE/LAFARGE/360WS/644/1

WS/361/1

WS/2323/1

POE/BOWS/2005/

WS/1594/1

WS/589/1 WS/650/1 WS/591/1 WS/652/1 WS/592/1

POE/OATES/2115/

WS/2296/1

WS/653/1

WS/362/1 WS/2124/1

WS/2125/1

POE/BOWS/1731/1WS/363/1

WS/364/1 WS/365/1 WS/366/1

WS/2297/1

WS/2328/1

WS/367/1 WS/685/1

Appendix 1

ls Local Plan Schedule of Objections

/1

1

1

-2

Objector

Chester Government Office for the East Midlands English Heritage (East Midlands Region)

Lafarge Aggregates C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)

Government Office for the East Midlands

Lafarge Aggregates English Nature (E Midlands Team)

Government Office for the East Midlands C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)

Lafarge Aggregates

Mr Bows

Government Office for the East Midlands Miss Mackie


English Heritage (East Midlands Region)

C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)

Sturton Quarry Action Team C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)


C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)

C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)

Network Rail Miss Mackie

C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) Miss Mackie

C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) Miss Mackie

Oates

Sturton Quarry Action Team

Sturton le Steeple Parish Council

C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)

Lafarge Aggregates English Heritage (East Midlands Region)

National Farmers Union

English Heritage (East Midlands Region)

Environment Agency Mr Bows

Lafarge Aggregates C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch)

Lafarge Aggregates Lafarge Aggregates Lafarge Aggregates

Sturton Quarry Action Team

Lafarge Aggregates

Rolandon Securities Ltd Lafarge Aggregates Tarmac Central Ltd

Council’s Response

WS/NCC/1695/1 WS/NCC/615/1

WS/NCC/2122/1

POE/NCC/360/1 WS/NCC/644/1

WS/NCC/2135/1

WS/NCC/361/1 WS/NCC/767/1 WS/NCC/621/1

WS/NCC/2013/1

WS/NCC/2323/1

POE/NCC/2005/1

WS/NCC/628/1 WS/NCC/2207/1

WS/NCC/2136/1

WS/NCC/2123/1

WS/NCC/646/1 WS/NCC/647/1

WS/NCC/1594/1 WS/NCC/2017/1

WS/NCC/617/1

WS/NCC/2018/1

WS/NCC/648/1

WS/NCC/1633/1 WS/NCC/589/1 WS/NCC/650/1 WS/NCC/591/1 WS/NCC/652/1 WS/NCC/592/1

POE/NCC/2115/1

WS/NCC/2296/1

WS/NCC/2108/1

WS/NCC/653/1 WS/NCC/2023/1

WS/NCC/362/1 WS/NCC/2124/1

WS/NCC/2001/1

WS/NCC/2125/1

WS/NCC/1609/1 POE/NCC/1731/1 WS/NCC/363/1 WS/NCC/656/1 WS/NCC/364/1 WS/NCC/365/1 WS/NCC/366/1

WS/NCC/2297/1

WS/NCC/2328/1

WS/NCC/939/1 WS/NCC/367/1 WS/NCC/685/1

3.68 661 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/661/1 M3.17 419 Quarry Products Association WS/NCC/419/1 M3.17 2311 WS/2311/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/2311/1

M3.17 2031 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/2031/1

M3.17 2278 English Nature (E Midlands Team) WS/NCC/2278/1

Table 3.2 521 WS/521/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/521/1 3.74 2280 English Nature (E Midlands Team) WS/NCC/2280/1

M3.19 780 English Nature (E Midlands Team) WS/NCC/780/1 M3.20 413 WS/413/1 Quarry Products Association WS/NCC/413/1 M3.20 369 WS/369/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/369/1 M3.20 2313 WS/2313/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/2313/1

M3.20 2183 R.S.P.B. (NW Region) WS/NCC/2183/1

M3.22 370 WS/370/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/370/1 M3.22 556 WS/556/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/556/1 M3.22 2314 WS/2314/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/2314/1

M3.23 371 WS/371/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/371/1 M3.23 2258 Viridor Waste Management WS/NCC/2258/1

M3.23 2330 WS/2330/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/2330/1

M3.24 43 National Farmers Union WS/NCC/43/1 M3.24 503 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/503/1 M3.25 504 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/504/1 M3.25 2331 WS/2331/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/2331/1

M3.25 2262 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/2262/1

M3.25 2288 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/2288/1

M3.27 505 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/505/1 3.104 1592 WS/1592/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team WS/NCC/1592/1

M3.28 506 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/506/1 4.9 632 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/632/1

M4.4 627 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/627/1 M4.5 500 POE/VIRIDOR/500/1-2 Viridor Waste Management POE/NCC/500/1 M4.5 2332 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/2332/1

M4.5 2342 POE/VIRIDOR/2342/1-2 Viridor Waste Management POE/NCC/2342/1

M4.5 2194 HJ Banks & Co. Ltd. WS/NCC/2194/1

4.14 2161 Mrs Swain WS/NCC/2161/1

4.14 2160 Robinson WS/NCC/2160/1

4.14 2159 Selston Area Residents Association WS/NCC/2159/1

4.14 2158 Mr Robinson WS/NCC/2158/1

4.14 2156 POE/SELSTON/2156/1 Selston Parish Council POE/NCC/2156/1

M4.6 499 Viridor Waste Management WS/NCC/499/1

4.22 2111 Burton Joyce Residents Association WS/NCC/2111/1

M4.7 418 WS/418/1 Quarry Products Association WS/NCC/418/1 M4.8 507 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/507/1 M4.9 498 Viridor Waste Management WS/NCC/498/1 M4.9 2242 WS/2242/1 Miss Mackie WS/NCC/2242/1


M4.9 2157 POE/SELSTON/2157/1 Selston Parish Council POE/NCC/2157/1

M4.10 480 R.S.P.B. (NW Region) WS/NCC/480/1 M4.12 1605 POE/BOWS/1605/1 Mr Bows POE/NCC/1605/1

M4.12 528 WS/528/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/528/1

4.62 417 WS/417/1 Quarry Products Association WS/NCC/417/1 M4.16 373 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/373/1

M4.16 416 WS/416/1 Quarry Products Association WS/NCC/416/1

M4.16 473 UK Coal Mining Ltd WS/NCC/473/1

M5.2 531 WS/531/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/531/1 415 POE/QPA/415/1 Quarry Products Association POE/NCC/LANDBANK

ROUNDTABLE/1-2 M6.1 487 POE/AGG IND/487/1 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd POE/NCC/487/1

6.12 486 WS/486/1 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd WS/NCC/486/1 6.22 603 Miss Mackie WS/NCC/603/1 6.22 1683 POE/ENNSTONE/

1683/1-4 Ennstone Plc POE/NCC/ENNSTONE/1

6.22-6.27 666 POE/CPRE/666/1 WS/666/1

C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2

Figure 6.1 2306 WS/2306/1 Crown Estates WS/NCC/2306/1 Figure 6.1 2137 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/2137/1

6.26 688 POE/TARMAC/688/1 Tarmac Central Ltd POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2

6.26 1704 Derby City Council WS/NCC/1704/1 6.26 1701 Derbyshire County Council WS/NCC/1701/1 6.26 2146 POE/TARMAC/2146/1 Tarmac Central Ltd POE/NCC/LANDBANK

ROUNDTABLE/1-2 6.26 2334 POE/LAFARGE/2334/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/LANDBANK

ROUNDTABLE/1-2 6.26 2263 POE/RMC/2263/1 R.M.C. Plc Group POE/NCC/LANDBANK

ROUNDTABLE/1-2 6.26 2138 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/2138/1

Table 6.1 2335 POE/LAFARGE/2335/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2

Table 6.1 2144 Hanson Aggregates - Central WS/NCC/2144/1

6.28 508 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/508/1 6.28 1682 POE/ENNSTONE/

1682/1-4 Ennstone Plc POE/NCC/ENNSTONE/1

6.28 639 WS/639/1 Crown Estates WS/NCC/639/1 6.28 1647 Latham Farms WS/NCC/1647/1 6.28 2139 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/2139/1

6.28 2307 WS/2307/1 Crown Estates WS/NCC/2307/1

6.29 374 POE/LAFARGE/374/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2

6.30 2140 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/2140/1


Table 6.2 411 POE/QPA/411/1 Quarry Products Association POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2

Table 6.2 2145 Hanson Aggregates - Central WS/NCC/2145/1 Table 6.2 2309 WS/2309/1 Crown Estates WS/NCC/2309/1

Table 6.2 2141 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/2141/1

6.29-6.32 667 POE/CPRE/667/1 WS/667/1

C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2

6.33 1729 WS/1729/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team WS/NCC/1729/1 6.37 1590 WS/1590/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team WS/NCC/1590/1 6.38 375 WS/375/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/375/1

Table 6.3 2264 POE/RMC/2264/1 R.M.C. Plc Group POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2

Table 6.3 2298 POE/SQUAT/2298/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1

6.39 485 POE/AGG IND/485/1 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd POE/NCC/LANDBANK ROUNDTABLE/1-2 POE/NCC/485/1-2

6.40 1685 POE/ENNSTONE/ 1685/1-4

Ennstone Plc POE/NCC/ENNSTONE/1


6.41 1646 Latham Farms WS/NCC/1646/1

6.41 1684 POE/ENNSTONE/ 1684/1-4

Ennstone Plc POE/NCC/ENNSTONE/1

6.43 692 WS/692/1 Tarmac Central Ltd WS/NCC/692/1 6.47 1629 POE/HANSON/ 1629/1 Hanson Aggregates North POE/NCC/1725/1 6.48 1711 WS/1711/1 Rotherham Sand and Gravel WS/NCC/1711/1

6.46-6.49 1631 POE/HANSON/ 1631/1 Hanson Aggregates North POE/NCC/1725/1

6.50 376 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/376/1 Figure 6.2 2299 POE/SQUAT/2299/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1

Table 6.4 691 POE/TARMAC/691/1 Tarmac Central Ltd POE/NCC/691/1 Table 6.4 2289 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/2289/1

Table 6.4 2300 POE/SQUAT/2300/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1

Table 6.4 2295 WS/2295/1-2 Burton Joyce Residents Association WS/NCC/2295/1

Table 6.4 2336 POE/LAFARGE/2336/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/STURTON/1

6.52 489 WS/489/1-2 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd WS/NCC/489/1


M6.3 488 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd WS/NCC/488/1

M6.4 890 Mr Porter WS/NCC/890/1

M6.4 875 Mr & Mrs Strong WS/NCC/875/1

M6.4 892 Matthews WS/NCC/892/1

M6.4 1706 Derby City Council WS/NCC/1706/1

M6.4 85 Mr Sperry WS/NCC/85/1

M6.4 247 Collins WS/NCC/247/1

M6.4 509 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/509/1

M6.4 569 Broxtowe Borough Council WS/NCC/569/1

M6.4 852 Mr & Mrs Banks WS/NCC/852/1

M6.4 848 Marshall WS/NCC/848/1

M6.4 1703 WS/1703/1 Derbyshire County Council WS/NCC/1703/1

M6.4 32 Mrs Maber WS/NCC/32/1

M6.4 33 Mr Maber WS/NCC/33/1

M6.4 882 Stonehouse WS/NCC/882/1

M6.5 1242 Mr Briggs WS/NCC/1242/1 M6.5 942 Cousins WS/NCC/942/1 M6.5 310 Mrs Harget WS/NCC/310/1 M6.5 643 POE/GIBBONS-BOWS/

643/1 Mrs Gibbons POE/NCC/643/1

M6.5 15 Mr & Mrs Price-Horne WS/NCC/15/1 M6.5 610 Mr O'Flynn WS/NCC/610/1 M6.5 1195 Mrs Davidge WS/NCC/1195/1 M6.5 567 Seddon WS/NCC/567/1 M6.5 980 Mrs Walters WS/NCC/980/1 M6.5 177 Group Captain Wheeler WS/NCC/177/1 M6.5 225 Fuller WS/NCC/225/1 M6.5 224 Fuller WS/NCC/224/1 M6.5 642 POE/GIBBONS-BOWS/

642/1 Mr Gibbons POE/NCC/642/1

M6.5 1194 Davidge WS/NCC/1194/1 M6.5 336 Mr & Mrs Martin WS/NCC/336/1 M6.5 1281 Bleasby Parish Council WS/NCC/1281/1 M6.5 1210 Waghorne WS/NCC/1210/1 M6.5 1225 Twelftree WS/NCC/1225/1 M6.5 1241 Miss Simpson WS/NCC/1241/1 M6.5 223 Mr Fuller WS/NCC/223/1 M6.5 340 Morgan WS/NCC/340/1 M6.5 405 Mrs McGrath WS/NCC/405/1 M6.5 311 Dr Harget WS/NCC/311/1 M6.5 561 Reedman WS/NCC/561/1

M6.5 321 Mrs Dodd WS/NCC/321/1 M6.5 334 Baxter WS/NCC/334/1 M6.5 335 Baxter WS/NCC/335/1 M6.5 981 Walters WS/NCC/981/1 M6.5 271 Boulter WS/NCC/271/1 M6.5 300 Mr Dodd WS/NCC/300/1 M6.5 290 Griffin WS/NCC/290/1 M6.5 289 Griffin WS/NCC/289/1 M6.5 226 Fuller WS/NCC/226/1 M6.5 294 Greenwood WS/NCC/294/1 M6.5 313 Boot WS/NCC/313/1 M6.5 278 Hubbard WS/NCC/278/1 M6.5 277 Challen WS/NCC/277/1 M6.5 261 Mr Cousins WS/NCC/261/1 M6.5 253 Mrs Hamer WS/NCC/253/1 M6.5 246 Mr Boulter WS/NCC/246/1 M6.5 242 Good WS/NCC/242/1 M6.5 302 Edmondson-Jones WS/NCC/302/1 M6.5 301 Edmondson-Jones WS/NCC/301/1 M6.5 240 Good WS/NCC/240/1 M6.5 150 Ward WS/NCC/150/1 M6.5 201 Mrs Wheeler WS/NCC/201/1 M6.5 196 Beswick WS/NCC/196/1 M6.5 195 Mrs Hudson WS/NCC/195/1 M6.5 565 Mr Jackson WS/NCC/565/1 M6.5 241 Good WS/NCC/241/1 M6.5 194 Mr Hudson WS/NCC/194/1 M6.5 292 Newark and Sherwood District Council WS/NCC/292/1 M6.5 151 Ward WS/NCC/151/1 M6.5 293 Greenwood WS/NCC/293/1 M6.5 131 Corbett WS/NCC/131/1 M6.5 120 Mr Noad WS/NCC/120/1 M6.5 119 Mrs Noad WS/NCC/119/1 M6.5 115 Fearnside WS/NCC/115/1 M6.5 192 Vickers WS/NCC/192/1 M6.5 210 Glazebrook WS/NCC/210/1 M6.5 173 Mrs Aldred WS/NCC/173/1 M6.5 2 Mrs Dyer WS/NCC/2/1 M6.5 101 Leyden WS/NCC/101/1 M6.5 100 Mr Pargeter WS/NCC/100/1 M6.5 99 Dytham WS/NCC/99/1 M6.5 98 Pargeter WS/NCC/98/1 M6.5 17 Mrs Metcalfe WS/NCC/17/1 M6.5 10 Mr Mee WS/NCC/10/1 M6.5 5 Mrs Richmond WS/NCC/5/1 M6.5 104 Morris WS/NCC/104/1 M6.5 3 Mr Brandreth WS/NCC/3/1 M6.5 4 Mr Richmond WS/NCC/4/1 M6.5 6 Arnold WS/NCC/6/1 M6.5 7 Mr Mackin WS/NCC/7/1 M6.5 8 Dr Durrant WS/NCC/8/1 M6.5 9 Mee WS/NCC/9/1 M6.5 112 Mr & Mrs Stone WS/NCC/112/1 M6.5 76 Bromley WS/NCC/76/1

M6.5 82 Mr Slawson WS/NCC/82/1 M6.5 92 Mrs Cookson WS/NCC/92/1 M6.5 188 Miss Aldred WS/NCC/188/1 M6.5 79 Mrs Noad WS/NCC/79/1 M6.5 73 Mrs Thompson WS/NCC/73/1 M6.5 75 Mr Jackman WS/NCC/75/1 M6.5 102 Mrs Pargeter WS/NCC/102/1 M6.5 95 Mr Glazebrook WS/NCC/95/1 M6.5 96 Mrs Glazebrook WS/NCC/96/1 M6.5 109 Mr Russell WS/NCC/109/1 M6.5 16 Metcalfe WS/NCC/16/1 M6.5 107 Pargeter WS/NCC/107/1 M6.5 13 Mrs Bromley WS/NCC/13/1 M6.5 72 Mr Thompson WS/NCC/72/1 M6.5 105 Mr Barker WS/NCC/105/1 M6.5 74 Mrs Jackman WS/NCC/74/1 M6.5 106 Leyden WS/NCC/106/1 M6.5 355 Mrs Hughes WS/NCC/355/1 M6.5 564 Mr Morton WS/NCC/564/1 M6.5 496 Mr & Mrs Dobb WS/NCC/496/1 M6.5 559 Reedman WS/NCC/559/1 M6.5 560 Reedman WS/NCC/560/1 M6.5 1599 Mr Lawrence WS/NCC/1599/1 M6.5 114 Noble WS/NCC/114/1 M6.5 342 Callaghan WS/NCC/342/1 M6.5 12 Gilbert WS/NCC/12/1 M6.5 69 Mr Taylor WS/NCC/69/1 M6.5 68 Mrs Coghill WS/NCC/68/1 M6.5 67 Mr Coghill WS/NCC/67/1 M6.5 14 Mr Bromley WS/NCC/14/1 M6.5 11 Mr Gough WS/NCC/11/1 M6.5 50 Mr Aston WS/NCC/50/1 M6.5 1606 POE/GIBBONS-BOWS/

1606/1 Mr Bows POE/NCC/1606/1

M6.5 65 Mrs Bell WS/NCC/65/1 M6.5 70 Mr Noad WS/NCC/70/1 M6.5 1 Mr Dyer WS/NCC/1/1 M6.5 59 Boudard WS/NCC/59/1 M6.5 54 Mr Kerry WS/NCC/54/1 M6.5 64 Mr Whitman WS/NCC/64/1 M6.5 63 Mr Bell WS/NCC/63/1 M6.5 60 Hemingbrough WS/NCC/60/1 M6.5 55 Mr Stump WS/NCC/55/1

6.69 2076 Mr Tipping MP WS/NCC/2076/1

M6.6 275 Mrs Neilson WS/NCC/275/1 M6.6 268 Mr Powell WS/NCC/268/1 M6.6 273 Mr Finney WS/NCC/273/1 M6.6 288 Szeteter WS/NCC/288/1 M6.6 170 Mrs Firth WS/NCC/170/1 M6.6 274 Mr Finney WS/NCC/274/1 M6.6 270 Maltby WS/NCC/270/1 M6.6 269 Dr McHale WS/NCC/269/1 M6.6 272 Mrs Finney WS/NCC/272/1 M6.6 276 Neilson WS/NCC/276/1

M6.6 231 Robb WS/NCC/231/1 M6.6 279 Wilkinson WS/NCC/279/1 M6.6 262 Mr Comerie WS/NCC/262/1 M6.6 285 Mr Barker WS/NCC/285/1 M6.6 287 Mrs Loach WS/NCC/287/1 M6.6 1626 Ellis WS/NCC/1626/1 M6.6 190 Mr & Mrs Hunt WS/NCC/190/1 M6.6 1623 Mr Green WS/NCC/1623/1 M6.6 1624 Dakin WS/NCC/1624/1 M6.6 1625 Mr Silbourne WS/NCC/1625/1 M6.6 291 Bennett WS/NCC/291/1 M6.6 286 Loach WS/NCC/286/1 M6.6 1459 Shaw WS/NCC/1459/1 M6.6 185 Washbrook WS/NCC/185/1 M6.6 204 Mrs Marson WS/NCC/204/1 M6.6 1353 Mr Bull WS/NCC/1353/1 M6.6 1445 Mrs Stainforth WS/NCC/1445/1 M6.6 1464 Mr & Mrs Bateman WS/NCC/1464/1 M6.6 183 Hall WS/NCC/183/1 M6.6 187 Allen WS/NCC/187/1 M6.6 233 Mr Green WS/NCC/233/1 M6.6 1462 Mrs Bates WS/NCC/1462/1 M6.6 193 Mrs Parker WS/NCC/193/1 M6.6 1460 Mr & Mrs Orton WS/NCC/1460/1 M6.6 267 Rowe WS/NCC/267/1 M6.6 197 Morley WS/NCC/197/1 M6.6 198 Savage WS/NCC/198/1 M6.6 199 Savage WS/NCC/199/1 M6.6 1458 Mrs Dixon WS/NCC/1458/1 M6.6 1457 Mr Quinn WS/NCC/1457/1 M6.6 186 Hall WS/NCC/186/1 M6.6 280 Grundy WS/NCC/280/1 M6.6 265 Mr & Mrs Paling WS/NCC/265/1 M6.6 266 Rowe WS/NCC/266/1 M6.6 1461 Mr & Mrs Smith WS/NCC/1461/1 M6.6 1348 Charity WS/NCC/1348/1 M6.6 1355 Mr Stones WS/NCC/1355/1 M6.6 260 Mr & Mrs West WS/NCC/260/1 M6.6 171 Mr Sills WS/NCC/171/1 M6.6 456 Ferguson WS/NCC/465/1 M6.6 248 Barnes-Brett WS/NCC/248/1 M6.6 1400 Smith WS/NCC/1400/1 M6.6 1356 Mr Bredenkamp WS/NCC/1356/1 M6.6 1354 Mr Curtis WS/NCC/1354/1 M6.6 1352 Mr Davey WS/NCC/1352/1 M6.6 258 Bell WS/NCC/258/1 M6.6 1350 Metcalfe WS/NCC/1350/1 M6.6 257 Bell WS/NCC/257/1 M6.6 1347 Mr Mulany WS/NCC/1347/1 M6.6 1346 Mrs Brown WS/NCC/1346/1 M6.6 1404 Hyde WS/NCC/1404/1 M6.6 1403 Bee WS/NCC/1403/1 M6.6 1414 Forbes WS/NCC/1414/1 M6.6 1401 Mrs Rose WS/NCC/1401/1

M6.6 182 Coe WS/NCC/182/1 M6.6 453 Broughton WS/NCC/453/1 M6.6 1399 Morritt WS/NCC/1399/1 M6.6 1359 Mr Burley WS/NCC/1359/1 M6.6 1468 Parsons WS/NCC/1468/1 M6.6 243 Claxton WS/NCC/243/1 M6.6 1627 Lowdham Parish Council WS/NCC/1627/1 M6.6 250 Mrs Simpson WS/NCC/250/1 M6.6 234 Walker WS/NCC/234/1 M6.6 235 Walker WS/NCC/235/1 M6.6 236 Mrs Javens WS/NCC/236/1 M6.6 237 Mr Javens WS/NCC/237/1 M6.6 238 Cunningham WS/NCC/238/1 M6.6 239 Pike WS/NCC/239/1 M6.6 1680 Parker WS/NCC/1680/1 M6.6 259 Towlerton WS/NCC/259/1 M6.6 1448 Metcalfe WS/NCC/1448/1 M6.6 295 Mrs Saric WS/NCC/295/1 M6.6 1447 Pietryua WS/NCC/1447/1 M6.6 1446 Knight WS/NCC/1446/1 M6.6 264 Wilkinson OBE WS/NCC/264/1 M6.6 249 Simpson WS/NCC/249/1 M6.6 263 Mr & Mrs Bell WS/NCC/263/1 M6.6 251 Wright WS/NCC/251/1 M6.6 252 Linley WS/NCC/252/1 M6.6 172 Mrs Sills WS/NCC/172/1 M6.6 255 Loach WS/NCC/255/1 M6.6 256 Loach WS/NCC/256/1 M6.6 1449 Crosby WS/NCC/1449/1 M6.6 399 Giles WS/NCC/399/1 M6.6 457 Mrs Mountney WS/NCC/457/1 M6.6 458 Wrench WS/NCC/458/1 M6.6 459 Wrench WS/NCC/459/1 M6.6 445 Burnford WS/NCC/445/1 M6.6 409 Smith WS/NCC/409/1 M6.6 296 Mrs Harper WS/NCC/296/1 M6.6 159 Martin WS/NCC/159/1 M6.6 1438 Mrs Mann WS/NCC/1438/1 M6.6 396 POE/COOK/396/1 Mr & Mrs Cook POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/2/4/5 M6.6 455 Ferguson WS/NCC/455/1 M6.6 398 Giles WS/NCC/398/1 M6.6 1349 Williamson WS/NCC/1349/1 M6.6 400 Giles WS/NCC/400/1 M6.6 401 Giles WS/NCC/401/1 M6.6 1608 POE/BOWS/1608/1 Mr Bows POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/1/2/5/7 M6.6 1437 Adkin WS/NCC/1437/1 M6.6 433 Mrs Jackson WS/NCC/433/1 M6.6 408 Gunthorpe Parish Council WS/NCC/408/1 M6.6 1439 Pericleous WS/NCC/1439/1 M6.6 410 Thornton WS/NCC/410/1 M6.6 397 Giles WS/NCC/397/1 M6.6 444 Knott WS/NCC/444/1 M6.6 1440 Mr & Mrs Marriott WS/NCC/1440/1

M6.6 434 Jackson WS/NCC/434/1 M6.6 435 Mr & Mrs Hancock WS/NCC/435/1 M6.6 436 Mrs Pabla WS/NCC/436/1 M6.6 437 Chapman WS/NCC/437/1 M6.6 438 Folkes WS/NCC/438/1 M6.6 439 Hart WS/NCC/439/1 M6.6 440 Palmer WS/NCC/440/1 M6.6 441 Hodges WS/NCC/441/1 M6.6 1555 Mr Adams WS/NCC/1555/1 M6.6 443 McAuley WS/NCC/443/1 M6.6 1398 Mrs Smith WS/NCC/1398/1 M6.6 432 Mr Mountney WS/NCC/432/1 M6.6 446 Parsons WS/NCC/446/1 M6.6 431 Homan WS/NCC/431/1 M6.6 448 Harris WS/NCC/448/1 M6.6 449 Mr Morris WS/NCC/449/1 M6.6 450 Ms Shah WS/NCC/450/1 M6.6 451 Shaw WS/NCC/451/1 M6.6 452 Mrs Harte WS/NCC/452/1 M6.6 795 Ryan WS/NCC/795/1 M6.6 1434 Mr Williams WS/NCC/1434/1 M6.6 442 Mr & Dr Crosby WS/NCC/442/1 M6.6 230 Grayson WS/NCC/230/1 M6.6 1436 Mr Hammonds WS/NCC/1436/1 M6.6 220 Mr Smith WS/NCC/220/1 M6.6 221 Mrs Smith WS/NCC/221/1 M6.6 222 Mr & Mrs Burbage WS/NCC/222/1 M6.6 1453 Hambly WS/NCC/1453/1 M6.6 1452 Haywood WS/NCC/1452/1 M6.6 1451 Mrs Laughlin WS/NCC/1451/1 M6.6 1450 Laughlin WS/NCC/1450/1 M6.6 227 Glover WS/NCC/227/1 M6.6 218 Phillips WS/NCC/218/1 M6.6 229 Mr & Mrs Foster WS/NCC/229/1 M6.6 203 Romaine WS/NCC/203/1 M6.6 298 Miss Watts WS/NCC/298/1 M6.6 217 Burton Joyce Parish Council WS/NCC/217/1 M6.6 1463 Mr & Mrs Hardacre WS/NCC/1463/1 M6.6 174 Mr & Mrs Wright WS/NCC/174/1 M6.6 175 Brown WS/NCC/175/1 M6.6 176 Alexander WS/NCC/176/1 M6.6 1467 Macdonald WS/NCC/1467/1 M6.6 178 Mr Scudder WS/NCC/178/1 M6.6 179 Smith WS/NCC/179/1 M6.6 1466 Boddy WS/NCC/1466/1 M6.6 228 Glover WS/NCC/228/1 M6.6 1456 Sheath WS/NCC/1456/1 M6.6 1465 Perry WS/NCC/1465/1 M6.6 1433 Mrs Williams WS/NCC/1433/1 M6.6 425 Mrs Hutson WS/NCC/425/1 M6.6 426 POE/BULCOTE

PC/426/1-2 Bulcote Parish Council POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/1/2/4/5/7 M6.6 427 Watts WS/NCC/427/1 M6.6 428 Walton WS/NCC/428/1 M6.6 429 Mr & Mrs Patchett WS/NCC/429/1

M6.6 430 Mr & Mrs Tivey WS/NCC/430/1 M6.6 407 Jeffery WS/NCC/407/1 M6.6 202 Mrs Sharp WS/NCC/202/1 M6.6 232 Mr Orders WS/NCC/232/1 M6.6 1435 Mr Fountain WS/NCC/1435/1 M6.6 206 Leighton WS/NCC/206/1 M6.6 207 Mrs Edwards WS/NCC/207/1 M6.6 208 Mrs Griffin WS/NCC/208/1 M6.6 209 Mr Cane WS/NCC/209/1 M6.6 1455 Sheath WS/NCC/1455/1 M6.6 211 Trueman WS/NCC/211/1 M6.6 212 Yates WS/NCC/212/1 M6.6 213 Bates WS/NCC/213/1 M6.6 214 Simmonds WS/NCC/214/1 M6.6 1454 Hyde WS/NCC/1454/1 M6.6 219 Perkins WS/NCC/219/1 M6.6 470 Forecast WS/NCC/470/1 M6.6 127 Pask WS/NCC/127/1 M6.6 1471 Mrs Caseley - Kirk WS/NCC/1471/1 M6.6 493 POE/MORAN/493/1-2 Mr & Mrs Moran POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/1/2/4/5 M6.6 462 Dobbs WS/NCC/462/1 M6.6 463 Mr Berrill WS/NCC/463/1 M6.6 464 Mrs Berrill WS/NCC/464/1 M6.6 465 Folkes WS/NCC/465/1 M6.6 466 Mr & Mrs Howitt WS/NCC/466/1 M6.6 467 Foster WS/NCC/467/1 M6.6 156 Mrs Ranford WS/NCC/156/1 M6.6 469 Hutson WS/NCC/469/1 M6.6 1408 McKee WS/NCC/1408/1 M6.6 158 Bastable WS/NCC/158/1 M6.6 1432 Mr Aston WS/NCC/1432/1 M6.6 157 Mrs Lea WS/NCC/157/1 M6.6 1431 Carr WS/NCC/1431/1 M6.6 1429 Harlow WS/NCC/1429/1 M6.6 146 Helmore WS/NCC/146/1 M6.6 1428 Mr Harlow WS/NCC/1428/1 M6.6 1587 Cannon WS/NCC/1587/1 M6.6 468 Foster WS/NCC/468/1 M6.6 568 Mr Eaves WS/NCC/568/1 M6.6 144 Powell WS/NCC/144/1 M6.6 143 Mr & Mrs Hollick WS/NCC/143/1 M6.6 1469 Smith WS/NCC/1469/1 M6.6 1470 Meldrum WS/NCC/1470/1 M6.6 558 Budin WS/NCC/558/1 M6.6 1601 Gedling Borough Council WS/NCC/1601/1 M6.6 1600 Dr Trueman WS/NCC/1600/1 M6.6 563 Mrs Brigham WS/NCC/563/1 M6.6 1597 Watson WS/NCC/1597/1 M6.6 1415 Mr Steele WS/NCC/1415/1 M6.6 126 Houghton WS/NCC/126/1 M6.6 129 Mrs Toghill WS/NCC/129/1 M6.6 147 Dakin WS/NCC/147/1 M6.6 138 Mr & Mrs White WS/NCC/138/1 M6.6 137 Shepherd WS/NCC/137/1

M6.6 136 Mr Leach WS/NCC/136/1 M6.6 135 Mrs Green WS/NCC/135/1 M6.6 134 Martin WS/NCC/134/1 M6.6 582 The Ramblers Association WS/NCC/582/1 M6.6 1424 Savage WS/NCC/1424/1 M6.6 1423 Mrs Crowson WS/NCC/1423/1 M6.6 1427 Bee WS/NCC/1427/1 M6.6 1596 Mr Cham WS/NCC/1596/1 M6.6 1472 Mrs Wieczorek WS/NCC/1472/1 M6.6 1483 Mrs Smith WS/NCC/1483/1 M6.6 669 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/669/1 M6.6 1484 Mrs Barnett WS/NCC/1484/1 M6.6 1485 Ashcroft WS/NCC/1485/1 M6.6 117 Mr Adams WS/NCC/117/1 M6.6 121 Sturgeon WS/NCC/121/1 M6.6 1422 Mrs Knight WS/NCC/1422/1 M6.6 1416 Mr Burns WS/NCC/1416/1 M6.6 495 Dr Bates WS/NCC/495/1 M6.6 1475 Mrs Taylor WS/NCC/1475/1 M6.6 1421 Mrs Forecast WS/NCC/1421/1 M6.6 1418 Mr George WS/NCC/1418/1 M6.6 1474 Miss Millen WS/NCC/1474/1 M6.6 1473 Miss Flanagan WS/NCC/1473/1 M6.6 94 Mrs Starling WS/NCC/94/1 M6.6 1417 Mr Gough WS/NCC/1417 M6.6 113 POE/BRAG/113/1-2 Bulcote Residents Association POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/2/5/7 POE/NCC/113/3

M6.6 447 Graham WS/NCC/447/1 M6.6 351 Pallett WS/NCC/351/1 M6.6 118 Mrs Adams WS/NCC/118/1 M6.6 1482 Mr Smith WS/NCC/1482/1 M6.6 155 Ramford WS/NCC/155/1 M6.6 154 Mr Wallace WS/NCC/154/1 M6.6 153 Mrs Wallace WS/NCC/153/1 M6.6 152 Mr Yeatman WS/NCC/152/1 M6.6 1678 POE/COAKER/ 1678/1 Mr Coaker MP POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/1/2/4/5 M6.6 149 Wright WS/NCC/149/1 M6.6 128 Dr Toghill WS/NCC/128/1 M6.6 1430 Mrs Jones WS/NCC/1430/1 M6.6 1240 Bowles WS/NCC/1240/1 M6.6 1419 Wells WS/NCC/1419/1 M6.6 130 Paling WS/NCC/130/1 M6.6 1478 Mrs Gregory WS/NCC/1478/1 M6.6 1420 Mr Forecast WS/NCC/1420/1 M6.6 1247 Robertson WS/NCC/1247/1 M6.6 1479 Mr Bonnington WS/NCC/1479/1 M6.6 1480 Parris WS/NCC/1480/1 M6.6 1248 Clark WS/NCC/1248/1 M6.6 1476 Taylor WS/NCC/1476/1 M6.6 1481 Mr Gregory WS/NCC/1481/1 M6.6 1477 Mr Hackett WS/NCC/1477/1 M6.6 533 WS/533/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/533/1 M6.6 125 Mr Fish WS/NCC/125/1

M6.6 1386 Doughty WS/NCC/1386/1 M6.6 1358 Bredenkamp WS/NCC/1358/1 M6.6 1368 Brown WS/NCC/1368/1 M6.6 1367 Brown WS/NCC/1367/1 M6.6 1366 Randall WS/NCC/1366/1 M6.6 1365 Hocking WS/NCC/1365/1 M6.6 1364 Nightingdale WS/NCC/1364/1 M6.6 1363 Mr Beatty WS/NCC/1363/1 M6.6 1362 Golland WS/NCC/1362/1 M6.6 1361 Mr Peart WS/NCC/1361/1 M6.6 145 Mrs Bass WS/NCC/145/1 M6.6 1246 Mrs Cockayne WS/NCC/1246/1 M6.6 1372 Mr Mosley WS/NCC/1372/1 M6.6 1371 Mosley WS/NCC/1371/1 M6.6 1567 Mr Smith WS/NCC/1567/1 M6.6 1581 Daykin WS/NCC/1581/1 M6.6 1580 Ackroyd WS/NCC/1580/1 M6.6 1579 Hardy WS/NCC/1579/1 M6.6 1578 Mrs Springthorpe WS/NCC/1578/1 M6.6 1577 Fordham WS/NCC/1577/1 M6.6 1576 Mrs Vernon WS/NCC/1576/1 M6.6 1575 Mrs Robinson WS/NCC/1575/1 M6.6 1360 Macdonald WS/NCC/1360/1 M6.6 1412 Mrs Carden WS/NCC/1412/1 M6.6 1396 Clarke WS/NCC/1396/1 M6.6 1395 Mr & Mrs Pearson WS/NCC/1395/1 M6.6 1394 Linley WS/NCC/1394/1 M6.6 1393 Mr & Mrs Stork WS/NCC/1393/1 M6.6 1392 Mr Lee WS/NCC/1392/1 M6.6 1391 Osborne WS/NCC/1391/1 M6.6 1390 Tennant WS/NCC/1390/1 M6.6 1389 Baggaley WS/NCC/1389/1 M6.6 1402 Green WS/NCC/1402/1 M6.6 1370 Mr Craddock WS/NCC/1370/1 M6.6 1413 Harding WS/NCC/1413/1 M6.6 1357 Bredenkamp WS/NCC/1357/1 M6.6 1411 Mr Carden WS/NCC/1411/1 M6.6 461 Withers WS/NCC/461/1 M6.6 1409 Mr Cuckson WS/NCC/1409/1 M6.6 454 Ferguson WS/NCC/454/1 M6.6 1407 Mr Garratt WS/NCC/1407/1 M6.6 1406 Garrett WS/NCC/1406/1 M6.6 1405 Mrs Quinn WS/NCC/1405/1 M6.6 1374 Mr Stewart WS/NCC/1374/1 M6.6 1373 Mosley WS/NCC/1373/1 M6.6 1572 Mrs Stainforth WS/NCC/1572/1 M6.6 1369 Parris WS/NCC/1369/1 M6.6 806 Spencer WS/NCC/806/1 M6.6 1574 Mr Robinson WS/NCC/1574/1 M6.6 796 Foss WS/NCC/796/1 M6.6 798 Foss WS/NCC/798/1 M6.6 799 Morley WS/NCC/799/1 M6.6 1582 Mrs Church WS/NCC/1582/1 M6.6 1586 Mr Thurston WS/NCC/1586/1

M6.6 1583 Ms Bull WS/NCC/1583/1 M6.6 1244 Ms Pearce WS/NCC/1244/1 M6.6 805 Whitehead WS/NCC/805/1 M6.6 1243 Mr & Mrs Broadbent WS/NCC/1243/1 M6.6 807 Ryan WS/NCC/807/1 M6.6 808 Mrs Topley WS/NCC/808/1 M6.6 809 Topley WS/NCC/809/1 M6.6 810 Mrs Tattersall WS/NCC/810/1 M6.6 811 Mr Tattersall WS/NCC/811/1 M6.6 1585 Mr McKay WS/NCC/1585/1 M6.6 1387 Mr Hardy WS/NCC/1387/1 M6.6 800 Mrs McCree WS/NCC/800/1 M6.6 139 Dr Tebbs WS/NCC/139/1 M6.6 1397 Hambly WS/NCC/1397/1 M6.6 804 Spencer WS/NCC/804/1 M6.6 1561 Mr Hampson-Smith WS/NCC/1561/1 M6.6 1425 Mr Savage WS/NCC/1425/1 M6.6 1571 Mrs Hanlox WS/NCC/1571/1 M6.6 1570 Mr Pearce WS/NCC/1570/1 M6.6 1388 Bedwell WS/NCC/1388/1 M6.6 1568 Mrs Godwin WS/NCC/1568/1 M6.6 1584 Twist WS/NCC/1584/1 M6.6 1566 Smith WS/NCC/1566/1 M6.6 1565 Miss Cottee WS/NCC/1565/1 M6.6 1564 Mr Harrison WS/NCC/1564/1 M6.6 1562 Gregory WS/NCC/1562/1 M6.6 1573 Mrs Shortland WS/NCC/1573/1 M6.6 1560 Mr James WS/NCC/1560/1 M6.6 1559 Newman WS/NCC/1559/1 M6.6 1558 Mr Harrison WS/NCC/1558/1 M6.6 1557 Mr Leopold WS/NCC/1557/1 M6.6 1556 Mr Springthorpe WS/NCC/1556/1 M6.6 1569 Godwin WS/NCC/1569/1 M6.6 802 Mrs Bowles WS/NCC/802/1 M6.6 1410 Pemberton WS/NCC/1410/1 M6.6 1385 Mrs Jones WS/NCC/1385/1 M6.6 1707 Burch WS/NCC/1707/1 M6.6 1563 Mr Walker WS/NCC/1563/1 M6.6 1206 Mitchell WS/NCC/1206/1 M6.6 1331 Marshall WS/NCC/1331/1 M6.6 1228 Richardson WS/NCC/1228/1 M6.6 1227 Howe WS/NCC/1227/1 M6.6 997 Tyler WS/NCC/997/1 M6.6 989 Thomason WS/NCC/989/1 M6.6 996 Collier WS/NCC/996/1 M6.6 1196 Thomson WS/NCC/1196/1 M6.6 1189 Mr Codling WS/NCC/1189/1 M6.6 1204 Mr & Mrs Hawley WS/NCC/1204/1 M6.6 1203 Burton Joyce Preservation Society WS/NCC/1203/1 M6.6 1202 Hamilton WS/NCC/1202/1 M6.6 1201 Sellers WS/NCC/1201/1 M6.6 1717 Miss Hampson-Smith WS/NCC/1717/1 M6.6 1199 Heighton WS/NCC/1199/1 M6.6 1380 Mrs Royston WS/NCC/1380/1

M6.6 1197 Ms Morgan WS/NCC/1197/1 M6.6 1207 Craig WS/NCC/1207/1 M6.6 1252 Hickling WS/NCC/1252/1 M6.6 1253 Simpson WS/NCC/1253/1 M6.6 1193 Mr Horton WS/NCC/1193/1 M6.6 1192 Griffiths WS/NCC/1192/1 M6.6 1191 Mrs Peane WS/NCC/1191/1 M6.6 1270 Clark WS/NCC/1270/1 M6.6 1198 Mr Byron WS/NCC/1198/1 M6.6 1261 Mr Fletcher WS/NCC/1261/1 M6.6 1155 Riekie WS/NCC/1155/1 M6.6 1268 Smith WS/NCC/1268/1 M6.6 1267 Mrs Wilde WS/NCC/1267/1 M6.6 1200 Heighton WS/NCC/1200/1 M6.6 1522 Mrs Pateman WS/NCC/1522/1 M6.6 1002 Mrs Rose WS/NCC/1002/1 M6.6 1003 Mr Hobson WS/NCC/1003/1 M6.6 1004 Hoare WS/NCC/1004/1 M6.6 988 Mr & Mrs Loach WS/NCC/988/1 M6.6 1304 Keeling WS/NCC/1304/1 M6.6 998 Mills WS/NCC/998/1 M6.6 1005 Robey WS/NCC/1005/1 M6.6 1524 Mr & Mrs Hill WS/NCC/1524/1 M6.6 1525 Ackroyd WS/NCC/1525/1 M6.6 1526 Smith WS/NCC/1526/1 M6.6 1527 Mrs Deakin WS/NCC/1527/1 M6.6 1528 Mr Rycroft WS/NCC/1528/1 M6.6 1520 Mrs Tebbs WS/NCC/1520/1 M6.6 1245 Cranny WS/NCC/1245/1 M6.6 1264 Chowdhury WS/NCC/1264/1 M6.6 1518 Pollard-Ward WS/NCC/1518/1 M6.6 1529 Mrs Rycroft WS/NCC/1529/1 M6.6 1230 Harrison WS/NCC/1230/1 M6.6 991 Sherlaw WS/NCC/991/1 M6.6 992 Gilles-Loach WS/NCC/992/1 M6.6 993 Mr Gillies-Loach WS/NCC/993/1 M6.6 994 Mr & Mrs Kemp WS/NCC/994/1 M6.6 995 Collier WS/NCC/995/1 M6.6 1229 McSweeney WS/NCC/1229/1 M6.6 925 Mr Thornhill WS/NCC/925/1 M6.6 1302 Mr Bell WS/NCC/1302/1 M6.6 1381 Mr Riekie WS/NCC/1381/1 M6.6 1519 Mc Cubbine WS/NCC/1519/1 M6.6 1006 Marsh WS/NCC/1006/1 M6.6 1336 Humphreys WS/NCC/1336/1 M6.6 1185 Stainforth WS/NCC/1185/1 M6.6 1184 Buck WS/NCC/1184/1 M6.6 1183 Mrs Ostrowsky-Wester WS/NCC/1183/1 M6.6 1182 Moss WS/NCC/1182/1 M6.6 1171 Mountain WS/NCC/1171/1 M6.6 1180 Priestly WS/NCC/1180/1 M6.6 1172 Mountain WS/NCC/1172/1 M6.6 1178 Mr & Mrs Ahmed WS/NCC/1178/1 M6.6 1177 Mrs Fullwood WS/NCC/1177/1

M6.6 1176 Croshaw WS/NCC/1176/1 M6.6 1174 Ackroyd WS/NCC/1174/1 M6.6 1181 Machin WS/NCC/1181/1 M6.6 1266 Astle WS/NCC/1266/1 M6.6 1337 Middleton WS/NCC/1337/1 M6.6 1179 Forbes WS/NCC/1179/1 M6.6 1335 Hunt WS/NCC/1335/1 M6.6 1334 Stolworthy WS/NCC/1334/1 M6.6 1333 Carr WS/NCC/1333/1 M6.6 1332 Mr Jones WS/NCC/1332/1 M6.6 1269 Vincent WS/NCC/1269/1 M6.6 1330 Rook WS/NCC/1330/1 M6.6 1340 Charity WS/NCC/1340/1 M6.6 1328 Mr Watson WS/NCC/1328/1 M6.6 1327 Mr Bamford WS/NCC/1327/1 M6.6 1326 Mr & Mrs Reynolds WS/NCC/1326/1 M6.6 1325 Bamford WS/NCC/1325/1 M6.6 1324 Mr Greenwood WS/NCC/1324/1 M6.6 1323 Mr Jones WS/NCC/1323/1 M6.6 1329 Roche WS/NCC/1329/1 M6.6 1167 Mrs Packham WS/NCC/1167/1 M6.6 1509 Humphries WS/NCC/1509/1 M6.6 1205 Mr & Mrs Harrison WS/NCC/1205/1 M6.6 1262 Mrs Fletcher WS/NCC/1262/1 M6.6 1188 Mr Ridgard WS/NCC/1188/1 M6.6 1260 Marshall WS/NCC/1260/1 M6.6 1259 Pike WS/NCC/1259/1 M6.6 1258 Mrs Dickens WS/NCC/1258/1 M6.6 1257 Mr Dickens WS/NCC/1257/1 M6.6 1256 Palmer WS/NCC/1256/1 M6.6 1208 Pegg WS/NCC/1208/1 M6.6 1263 Chowdhury WS/NCC/1263/1 M6.6 1162 Chedzey WS/NCC/1162/1 M6.6 1170 Bland WS/NCC/1170/1 M6.6 1186 Stevenson WS/NCC/1186/1 M6.6 1161 Potter WS/NCC/1161/1 M6.6 1265 Wilde WS/NCC/1265/1 M6.6 1164 Mr Watson WS/NCC/1164/1 M6.6 1048 Chilton WS/NCC/1048/1 M6.6 1157 Mrs Chilton WS/NCC/1157/1 M6.6 1158 Mr Dunmore WS/NCC/1158/1 M6.6 1160 Mrs Potter WS/NCC/1160/1 M6.6 1168 Mr Packham WS/NCC/1168/1 M6.6 1173 Mr Payne WS/NCC/1173/1 M6.6 1163 Mrs Watson WS/NCC/1163/1 M6.6 1190 Mr Ridgard WS/NCC/1190/1 M6.6 1165 Barsby WS/NCC/1165/1 M6.6 1166 Mrs Barsby WS/NCC/1166/1 M6.6 1187 Stevenson WS/NCC/1187/1 M6.6 1159 Mrs Stone WS/NCC/1159/1 M6.6 1226 Mrs Richardson WS/NCC/1226/1 M6.6 1551 Mr & Mrs Day WS/NCC/1551/1 M6.6 1547 Proctor WS/NCC/1547/1 M6.6 1546 Shaw WS/NCC/1546/1

M6.6 1499 Mr Bear WS/NCC/1499/1 M6.6 1545 Mr & Mrs Sawyer WS/NCC/1545/1 M6.6 1015 Mrs Robey WS/NCC/1015/1 M6.6 1488 Mr Gale WS/NCC/1488/1 M6.6 1249 Dr Barrett WS/NCC/1249/1 M6.6 1489 Mr Clark WS/NCC/1489/1 M6.6 1021 Varley WS/NCC/1021/1 M6.6 1486 Aslcran WS/NCC/1486/1 M6.6 1384 Mr Jones WS/NCC/1384/1 M6.6 1019 Mrs De Villiers WS/NCC/1019/1 M6.6 1501 Wells WS/NCC/1501/1 M6.6 1508 Watson WS/NCC/1508/1 M6.6 1490 Ross WS/NCC/1490/1 M6.6 1487 Greatorex WS/NCC/1487/1 M6.6 1496 Hollis WS/NCC/1496/1 M6.6 1491 Aston WS/NCC/1491/1 M6.6 1492 Masters WS/NCC/1492/1 M6.6 1493 Goulder WS/NCC/1493/1 M6.6 1494 Winstanley WS/NCC/1494/1 M6.6 1018 Macdonald WS/NCC/1018/1 M6.6 1017 M'Carthy WS/NCC/1017/1 M6.6 1498 Mrs Hooper WS/NCC/1498/1 M6.6 1495 Hammonds WS/NCC/1495/1 M6.6 1543 Ashton Lee WS/NCC/1543/1 M6.6 1521 Mrs Nicholson WS/NCC/1521/1 M6.6 1544 Mrs Hucknall WS/NCC/1544/1 M6.6 1514 Mrs Fell WS/NCC/1514/1 M6.6 1378 Mrs Rigg WS/NCC/1378/1 M6.6 969 Mr Brindle WS/NCC/969/1 M6.6 1377 Maguire WS/NCC/1377/1 M6.6 1376 Stubbs WS/NCC/1376/1 M6.6 1375 Stubbs WS/NCC/1375/1 M6.6 1239 Bowles WS/NCC/1239/1 M6.6 1301 Cassidy WS/NCC/1301/1 M6.6 976 Rayfield WS/NCC/976/1 M6.6 1503 Hudson WS/NCC/1503/1 M6.6 982 Bradshaw WS/NCC/982/1 M6.6 987 Mr Wilkinson WS/NCC/987/1 M6.6 1238 Singleton WS/NCC/1238/1 M6.6 1517 Mrs Pither WS/NCC/1517/1 M6.6 1500 Mr Randall WS/NCC/1500/1 M6.6 1231 Harrison WS/NCC/1231/1 M6.6 1007 Marsh WS/NCC/1007/1 M6.6 978 Chippindale WS/NCC/978/1 M6.6 979 Sladen WS/NCC/979/1 M6.6 1255 Beckett WS/NCC/1255/1 M6.6 1254 Mr & Mrs Doody WS/NCC/1254/1 M6.6 984 Mr & Mrs Carradice WS/NCC/984/1 M6.6 1515 Mr Fell WS/NCC/1515/1 M6.6 1516 Williams WS/NCC/1516/1 M6.6 1000 Mr & Mrs Boyce WS/NCC/1000/1 M6.6 1510 Hodson WS/NCC/1510/1 M6.6 1505 Smith WS/NCC/1505/1 M6.6 1512 Metcalf WS/NCC/1512/1

M6.6 1513 Mrs Archer WS/NCC/1513/1 M6.6 1511 Bird WS/NCC/1511/1 M6.6 1232 Mrs Horton WS/NCC/1232/1 M6.6 1506 Boddy WS/NCC/1506/1 M6.6 1012 Morris WS/NCC/1012/1 M6.6 1536 Mrs Proctor WS/NCC/1536/1 M6.6 1011 Hartland WS/NCC/1011/1 M6.6 1016 Mr O'Neill WS/NCC/1016/1 M6.6 1541 Miss Stafford WS/NCC/1541/1 M6.6 18 Mr Beckett WS/NCC/18/1 M6.6 1010 WS/1010/1 Mrs Scott WS/NCC/1010/1 M6.6 1540 Corah WS/NCC/1540/1 M6.6 1539 Titterton WS/NCC/1539/1 M6.6 1538 Parrish WS/NCC/1538/1 M6.6 1542 Fisher WS/NCC/1542/1 M6.6 999 Mrs Mills WS/NCC/999/1 M6.6 966 Mr & Mrs Kumra WS/NCC/966/1 M6.6 1013 Boschetto WS/NCC/1013/1 M6.6 1024 MacDonald WS/NCC/1024/1 M6.6 965 Mitchell WS/NCC/965/1 M6.6 964 Boon WS/NCC/964/1 M6.6 963 Ms Corns WS/NCC/963/1 M6.6 962 Boon WS/NCC/962/1 M6.6 1504 Mr & Mrs Lane WS/NCC/1504/1 M6.6 961 Dilks WS/NCC/961/1 M6.6 990 Mr Willet WS/NCC/990/1 M6.6 1379 Rigg WS/NCC/1379/1 M6.6 1523 Mr Pateman WS/NCC/1523/1 M6.6 977 Scott WS/NCC/977/1 M6.6 1303 Mr Gascoigne WS/NCC/1303/1 M6.6 1271 Wise WS/NCC/1271/1 M6.6 1507 Clayton WS/NCC/1507/1 M6.6 1308 POE/BJRA/1308/1-3 Burton Joyce Residents Association POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/1/2/4/5 POE/NCC/1308/3

M6.6 1497 Mr Hooper WS/NCC/1497/1 M6.6 1020 Mrs Scott WS/NCC/1020/1 M6.6 1549 Dixon WS/NCC/1549/1 M6.6 1548 Osbourne WS/NCC/1548/1 M6.6 1550 Davis WS/NCC/1550/1 M6.6 1532 Beardsley WS/NCC/1532/1 M6.6 1383 Mosley WS/NCC/1383/1 M6.6 1535 Bates WS/NCC/1535/1 M6.6 1534 Mrs Clifford WS/NCC/1534/1 M6.6 1022 Robertson WS/NCC/1022/1 M6.6 1553 Hampson - Smith WS/NCC/1553/1 M6.6 1307 Burton Joyce & Bulcote Local History Society WS/NCC/1307/1 M6.6 1009 Harding WS/NCC/1009/1 M6.6 1382 Doughty WS/NCC/1382/1 M6.6 1305 Walker WS/NCC/1305/1 M6.6 1001 Brock WS/NCC/1001/1 M6.6 1014 Mrs Douglas WS/NCC/1014/1 M6.6 1233 MacCallum WS/NCC/1233/1 M6.6 1533 Clifford WS/NCC/1533/1 M6.6 1023 Hollis WS/NCC/1023/1

M6.6 1537 Swinson WS/NCC/1537/1 M6.6 167 Gould WS/NCC/167/1 M6.6 1312 Davies WS/NCC/1312/1 M6.6 353 Mrs Pallett WS/NCC/353/1 M6.6 1008 Kefer WS/NCC/1008/1 M6.6 1531 Breeze WS/NCC/1531/1 M6.6 1306 Mrs Fairclough WS/NCC/1306/1 M6.6 1716 Miss Hampson-Smith WS/NCC/1716/1 M6.6 1530 Dr Danforth WS/NCC/1530/1 M6.6 1102 Mrs Coward WS/NCC/1102/1 M6.6 1128 Bloomfield WS/NCC/1128/1 M6.6 1149 Mr Reed WS/NCC/1149/1 M6.6 1148 Fowler WS/NCC/1148/1 M6.6 1137 Chilton WS/NCC/1137/1 M6.6 1146 Mrs Rogers WS/NCC/1146/1 M6.6 1138 Blane WS/NCC/1138/1 M6.6 1144 Earnshaw WS/NCC/1144/1 M6.6 1143 Mrs Dixon WS/NCC/1143/1 M6.6 1142 Edwards WS/NCC/1142/1 M6.6 1141 Edwards WS/NCC/1141/1 M6.6 1140 Klima WS/NCC/1140/1 M6.6 1119 Mr Joshua WS/NCC/1119/1 M6.6 1151 Boston WS/NCC/1151/1 M6.6 165 Mrs Marshall WS/NCC/165/1 M6.6 1101 Stokes WS/NCC/1101/1 M6.6 1100 Poole WS/NCC/1100/1 M6.6 1098 Berry WS/NCC/1098/1 M6.6 1097 Berry WS/NCC/1097/1 M6.6 1121 Bakewell WS/NCC/1121/1 M6.6 1105 Carter WS/NCC/1105/1 M6.6 1094 Mrs Lokes WS/NCC/1094/1 M6.6 1093 Stafford WS/NCC/1093/1 M6.6 1092 Hutchry WS/NCC/1092/1 M6.6 1091 Wilkinson WS/NCC/1091/1 M6.6 1090 Stafford WS/NCC/1090/1 M6.6 1147 Fowler WS/NCC/1147/1 M6.6 1122 Bakewell WS/NCC/1122/1 M6.6 326 Mr & Mrs Riley WS/NCC/326/1 M6.6 1135 Chilton WS/NCC/1135/1 M6.6 1134 Miss Milner WS/NCC/1134/1 M6.6 1133 Mr Watkins WS/NCC/1133/1 M6.6 1132 Mrs Birkett WS/NCC/1132/1 M6.6 1131 Mr Birkett WS/NCC/1131/1 M6.6 1087 Harris WS/NCC/1087/1 M6.6 1129 Mr & Mrs Gardner WS/NCC/1129/1 M6.6 1139 Blane WS/NCC/1139/1 M6.6 1127 Hall WS/NCC/1127/1 M6.6 1126 Hall WS/NCC/1126/1 M6.6 1125 Mrs Haigh WS/NCC/1125/1 M6.6 1150 Mrs Reed WS/NCC/1150/1 M6.6 1123 Bakewell WS/NCC/1123/1 M6.6 1111 Mrs Carter WS/NCC/1111/1 M6.6 1130 Mrs Hallam WS/NCC/1130/1 M6.6 1145 Earnshaw WS/NCC/1145/1

M6.6 1153 Mr & Mrs Hill WS/NCC/1153/1 M6.6 1209 Mr & Mrs Staniforth WS/NCC/1209/1 M6.6 164 Thatcher WS/NCC/164/1 M6.6 1175 Mrs Todd WS/NCC/1175/1 M6.6 320 Harrison WS/NCC/320/1 M6.6 319 Harrison WS/NCC/319/1 M6.6 318 Boardman WS/NCC/318/1 M6.6 317 Barkes WS/NCC/317/1 M6.6 316 Evans WS/NCC/316/1 M6.6 315 Mrs Swinburne WS/NCC/315/1 M6.6 314 Grundy WS/NCC/314/1 M6.6 1124 Bernasconi WS/NCC/1124/1 M6.6 341 Mrs Blackman WS/NCC/341/1 M6.6 1620 Beedham WS/NCC/1620/1 M6.6 324 Parr WS/NCC/324/1 M6.6 344 Mrs Wright WS/NCC/344/1 M6.6 345 Lister WS/NCC/345/1 M6.6 346 Ms Mayfield WS/NCC/346/1 M6.6 347 Ms Mills WS/NCC/347/1 M6.6 348 Mr Greatorex WS/NCC/348/1 M6.6 349 Dawes WS/NCC/349/1 M6.6 350 Mrs Matts WS/NCC/350/1 M6.6 160 Mrs Martin WS/NCC/160/1 M6.6 352 Yeomans WS/NCC/352/1 M6.6 166 Mr & Mrs Prime WS/NCC/166/1 M6.6 1025 Mrs Davis WS/NCC/1025/1 M6.6 161 Fish WS/NCC/161/1 M6.6 339 Mrs Munn WS/NCC/339/1 M6.6 312 Cooke WS/NCC/312/1 M6.6 460 Mr & Mrs Hughes WS/NCC/460/1 M6.6 299 Szeteser WS/NCC/299/1 M6.6 1621 POE/FELL/1621/1 Mr Fell POE/NCC/

GUNTHORPE/2/5/6/8 M6.6 169 Mr Firth WS/NCC/169/1 M6.6 168 Mrs Rowbottom WS/NCC/168/1 M6.6 303 Blanche WS/NCC/303/1 M6.6 304 Blanche WS/NCC/304/1 M6.6 305 Groves WS/NCC/305/1 M6.6 306 Groves WS/NCC/306/1 M6.6 307 Mr & Mrs Godfrey WS/NCC/307/1 M6.6 1444 Greenwood WS/NCC/1444/1 M6.6 1443 Bliss WS/NCC/1443/1 M6.6 354 Cole WS/NCC/354/1 M6.6 1120 Simmonds WS/NCC/1120/1 M6.6 1223 Mrs Tilley WS/NCC/1223/1 M6.6 1088 Harris WS/NCC/1088/1 M6.6 1118 Mrs Stone WS/NCC/1118/1 M6.6 1117 Mrs Burton WS/NCC/1117/1 M6.6 1116 Mr & Mrs Levy WS/NCC/1116/1 M6.6 1115 Bates WS/NCC/1115/1 M6.6 1114 Moore WS/NCC/1114/1 M6.6 1103 Moore WS/NCC/1103/1 M6.6 1112 Miss Fletcher WS/NCC/1112/1 M6.6 1104 Wagstaff WS/NCC/1104/1 M6.6 1110 Burley WS/NCC/1110/1

M6.6 1109 Mr Carter WS/NCC/1109/1 M6.6 1108 Carter WS/NCC/1108/1 M6.6 325 Rudge WS/NCC/325/1 M6.6 329 Mrs Peters WS/NCC/329/1 M6.6 1222 Tilley WS/NCC/1222/1 M6.6 338 Mr Taylor WS/NCC/338/1 M6.6 1442 Mr Sewtance WS/NCC/1442/1 M6.6 163 Thatcher WS/NCC/163/1 M6.6 333 Mr & Mrs Wyles WS/NCC/333/1 M6.6 1107 Wagstaff WS/NCC/1107/1 M6.6 330 Watts WS/NCC/330/1 M6.6 1106 Scott WS/NCC/1106/1 M6.6 328 Mr & Mrs Smith WS/NCC/328/1 M6.6 327 Dr Coleman WS/NCC/327/1 M6.6 297 Hall WS/NCC/297/1 M6.6 1441 Mr Henshaw WS/NCC/1441/1 M6.6 1113 Weston WS/NCC/1113/1 M6.6 162 Young WS/NCC/162/1 M6.6 332 Mr Platten WS/NCC/332/1 M6.6 1294 Thomason WS/NCC/1294/1 M6.6 1274 Coleman WS/NCC/1274/1 M6.6 1273 Mr & Mrs Johnson WS/NCC/1273/1 M6.6 1272 Mr Johnson WS/NCC/1272/1 M6.6 1280 Mrs Shore WS/NCC/1280/1 M6.6 1295 Harris WS/NCC/1295/1 M6.6 1154 Mr Terry WS/NCC/1154/1 M6.6 1319 Parsons WS/NCC/1319/1 M6.6 1318 Moore WS/NCC/1318/1 M6.6 1300 Mr Harrison WS/NCC/1300/1 M6.6 1299 Mrs Mann WS/NCC/1299/1 M6.6 1298 Rutter WS/NCC/1298/1 M6.6 1287 Machin WS/NCC/1287/1 M6.6 1288 Mr & Mrs Carrington WS/NCC/1288/1 M6.6 1277 Silver WS/NCC/1277/1 M6.6 1293 Mrs Daniel WS/NCC/1293/1 M6.6 1292 Robinson WS/NCC/1292/1 M6.6 1291 Dale WS/NCC/1291/1 M6.6 1290 Mr Pinhey WS/NCC/1290/1 M6.6 1321 Mr Simpson WS/NCC/1321/1 M6.6 1297 Hopkin WS/NCC/1297/1 M6.6 1061 Hubbard WS/NCC/1061/1 M6.6 1069 Tyson WS/NCC/1069/1 M6.6 1068 Tyson WS/NCC/1068/1 M6.6 1067 Clothier WS/NCC/1067/1 M6.6 1066 Humber WS/NCC/1066/1 M6.6 1065 Callaghan WS/NCC/1065/1 M6.6 1136 Chilton WS/NCC/1136/1 M6.6 1296 Mr Bennett WS/NCC/1296/1 M6.6 1211 Hibbert WS/NCC/1211/1 M6.6 1219 Mr & Mrs Dudley WS/NCC/1219/1 M6.6 1216 Moorhouse WS/NCC/1216/1 M6.6 1215 Mr & Mrs Forbes WS/NCC/1215/1 M6.6 1214 Mr & Mrs Mayfield WS/NCC/1214/1 M6.6 1213 Mr Munn WS/NCC/1213/1

M6.6 1212 Judge WS/NCC/1212/1 M6.6 1338 Redfern WS/NCC/1338/1 M6.6 1250 Clerk WS/NCC/1250/1 M6.6 1339 Mrs Northern WS/NCC/1339/1 M6.6 1345 Mr Dent WS/NCC/1345/1 M6.6 1344 Mr Cronin WS/NCC/1344/1 M6.6 1343 Mr Cox WS/NCC/1343/1 M6.6 1342 Mr Shepherd WS/NCC/1342/1 M6.6 1275 Craddock WS/NCC/1275/1 M6.6 1284 Mrs Wright WS/NCC/1284/1 M6.6 1062 Mr & Mrs Todd WS/NCC/1062/1 M6.6 1289 Smeeton WS/NCC/1289/1 M6.6 1279 Hackett WS/NCC/1279/1 M6.6 1322 Mr Bowler WS/NCC/1322/1 M6.6 1251 Bryant WS/NCC/1251/1 M6.6 1341 Mrs Shepherd WS/NCC/1341/1 M6.6 1283 Holt WS/NCC/1283/1 M6.6 1320 Dr Page WS/NCC/1320/1 M6.6 1285 Mr Wright WS/NCC/1285/1 M6.6 323 Mr & Mrs Reddish WS/NCC/323/1 M6.6 1286 Tyas WS/NCC/1286/1 M6.6 1278 Hocking WS/NCC/1278/1 M6.6 1276 Clark WS/NCC/1276/1 M6.6 1282 Holt WS/NCC/1282/1 M6.6 1051 Mr Tuffrey WS/NCC/1051/1 M6.6 1064 Mrs Gardner WS/NCC/1064/1 M6.6 1035 Hodson WS/NCC/1035/1 M6.6 1054 Roggan WS/NCC/1054/1 M6.6 1033 Wells WS/NCC/1033/1 M6.6 1043 Brown WS/NCC/1043/1 M6.6 1031 Rowlands WS/NCC/1031/1 M6.6 1030 Webb WS/NCC/1030/1 M6.6 1029 Webb WS/NCC/1029/1 M6.6 1028 Mrs O'Neill WS/NCC/1028/1 M6.6 1027 Fields WS/NCC/1027/1 M6.6 1026 Kininmonth WS/NCC/1026/1 M6.6 1034 Mrs Wright WS/NCC/1034/1 M6.6 1037 Soltysik WS/NCC/1037/1 M6.6 1089 Mrs Reddish WS/NCC/1089/1 M6.6 1038 Soltysik WS/NCC/1038/1 M6.6 1351 Pryor WS/NCC/1351/1 M6.6 1221 Mrs Attenborrow WS/NCC/1221/1 M6.6 1554 Mr Stewart WS/NCC/1554/1 M6.6 1050 Mr Tuffrey WS/NCC/1050/1 M6.6 1041 Marsh WS/NCC/1041/1 M6.6 1224 Mr Tilley WS/NCC/1224/1 M6.6 1042 Mr Oscroft WS/NCC/1042/1 M6.6 1049 Mrs Tuffrey WS/NCC/1049/1 M6.6 1047 Hollis WS/NCC/1047/1 M6.6 1046 McNamara WS/NCC/1046/1 M6.6 1045 Blane WS/NCC/1045/1 M6.6 1044 Brown WS/NCC/1044/1 M6.6 1053 Schofield WS/NCC/1053/1 M6.6 1220 Mrs Smith WS/NCC/1220/1

M6.6 1070 Whittaker WS/NCC/1070/1 M6.6 1072 Mrs Silver WS/NCC/1072/1 M6.6 1060 Gardner WS/NCC/1060/1 M6.6 1059 Todd WS/NCC/1059/1 M6.6 1058 Smith WS/NCC/1058/1 M6.6 1057 Allwood WS/NCC/1057/1 M6.6 1056 Allwood WS/NCC/1056/1 M6.6 1055 Smith WS/NCC/1055/1 M6.6 1063 Wright WS/NCC/1063/1 M6.6 1078 Fritscher WS/NCC/1078/1 M6.6 1086 Mrs Hanson WS/NCC/1086/1 M6.6 1085 Buckley WS/NCC/1085/1 M6.6 1084 Grain WS/NCC/1084/1 M6.6 1083 Orchard WS/NCC/1083/1 M6.6 1036 Harwood WS/NCC/1036/1 M6.6 1074 Rawson WS/NCC/1074/1 M6.6 1039 Lears WS/NCC/1039/1 M6.6 1040 Marsh WS/NCC/1040/1 M6.6 1032 Mr Wright WS/NCC/1032/1 M6.6 1080 Dearlove WS/NCC/1080/1 M6.6 1052 Mrs Blandamer WS/NCC/1052/1 M6.6 1082 Mr Burton WS/NCC/1082/1 M6.6 1073 Rawson WS/NCC/1073/1 M6.6 1081 Statham WS/NCC/1081/1 M6.6 1075 Mrs Allan WS/NCC/1075/1 M6.6 1076 Mr Allen WS/NCC/1076/1 M6.6 1077 Nicholson WS/NCC/1077/1 M6.6 1071 Mrs Perry WS/NCC/1071/1 M6.6 1079 Mrs Balfe WS/NCC/1079/1 M6.6 1152 Mr & Mrs West WS/NCC/1152/1

6.76 377 WS/377/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/377/1 6.83 378 POE/LAFARGE/378/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/378/1-2 6.86 670 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/670/1

M6.7 534 WS/534/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/534/1 M6.7 422 West Lindsey District Council WS/NCC/422/1 M6.7 1309 Councillor Knight WS/NCC/1309/1

6.92 380 WS/380/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/380/1 6.92 2290 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/2290/1

6.93 381 WS/381/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/381/1 6.93 2301 POE/SQUAT/2301/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1/3 6.93 2109 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/2109/1

6.93 2190 The Ramblers Association WS/NCC/2190/1

6.93 2259 POE/WLDC/2259/1 West Lindsey District Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1/3 6.93 2150 POE/BURKE/2150/1 Mr & Mrs Burke POE/NCC/STURTON/1/3

6.93 2002 POE/ST MC/2002/1 St Mary's Knaith Parochial Church Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1/3

6.93 2291 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/2291/1

6.93 2337 POE/LAFARGE/ 2337/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/STURTON/1 6.94 1593 POE/SQUAT/1593/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1/2/4

6.94(c) 2338 POE/LAFARGE/ 2338/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/STURTON/1 6.94(c) 2302 Sturton Quarry Action Team WS/NCC/2302/1

6.94(c) 2004 POE/ST MC/2004/1 St Mary's Knaith Parochial Church Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1/3 6.94(c) 2268 WS/2268/1 EDF Energy WS/NCC/2268/1

6.94(c) 2292 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/2292/1

6.94a 2339 POE/LAFARGE/2339/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/STURTON/1 6.94a 2303 Sturton Quarry Action Team WS/NCC/2303/1

6.94a 2162 Residents Against Gravel Extraction WS/NCC/2162/1

6.94a 2261 POE/WLDC/2261/1 West Lindsey District Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1-3 6.94a 2315 WS/2315/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/2315/1

6.94a 2168 Edwards WS/NCC/2168/1

6.94a 2065 EDF Energy WS/NCC/2065/1

6.94a 2267 POE/ST MC/2267/1 St Mary's Knaith Parochial Church Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1-3 M6.8 741 Sanderson WS/NCC/741/1 M6.8 710 Mr Langhan WS/NCC/710/1 M6.8 716 Mr Vince WS/NCC/716/1 M6.8 707 Scragfield WS/NCC/707/1 M6.8 708 Mr Storry WS/NCC/708/1 M6.8 709 Overson WS/NCC/709/1 M6.8 711 Foxon WS/NCC/711/1 M6.8 712 Mrs Rick WS/NCC/712/1 M6.8 713 Allen WS/NCC/713/1 M6.8 735 Lawson WS/NCC/735/1 M6.8 734 Parkes WS/NCC/734/1 M6.8 717 Thompson WS/NCC/717/1 M6.8 724 Stanser WS/NCC/724/1 M6.8 740 Hall WS/NCC/740/1 M6.8 739 Mr Steers WS/NCC/739 M6.8 738 Birkett WS/NCC/738/1 M6.8 722 Mrs Havercroft WS/NCC/722/1 M6.8 725 Mrs Furnival WS/NCC/725/1 M6.8 733 Douce WS/NCC/733/1 M6.8 732 Whitehouse WS/NCC/732/1 M6.8 731 Douce WS/NCC/731/1 M6.8 729 Mr Randall WS/NCC/729/1 M6.8 727 Mrs Allison WS/NCC/727/1 M6.8 726 Mr & Mrs Hall WS/NCC/726/1 M6.8 404 Daykin WS/NCC/404/1 M6.8 718 Merson WS/NCC/718/1 M6.8 737 Mr Cuckson WS/NCC/737/1 M6.8 88 Mr Savage WS/NCC/88/1 M6.8 205 Fleming WS/NCC/205/1 M6.8 216 Mrs Warburton WS/NCC/216/1 M6.8 535 WS/535/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/535/1 M6.8 1603 Mr Warburton WS/NCC/1603/1 M6.8 1604 Mr Warburton WS/NCC/1604/1 M6.8 494 Mrs Musson WS/NCC/494/1 M6.8 492 POE/BURKE/492/1 Mr & Mrs Burke POE/NCC/STURTON/1-3 M6.8 491 Knaith Parish Council (Lincs) WS/NCC/491/1 M6.8 1595 Mr Chester WS/NCC/1595/1 M6.8 83 Mrs Pickering WS/NCC/83/1 M6.8 111 Mr Heald WS/NCC/111/1 M6.8 93 Mrs Radford WS/NCC/93/1 M6.8 424 Rockcliffe WS/NCC/424/1 M6.8 90 Mrs Savage WS/NCC/90/1 M6.8 1588 Wood WS/NCC/1588/1 M6.8 1689 Moxon WS/NCC/1689/1 M6.8 84 Mrs Pickering WS/NCC/84/1 M6.8 141 Mr Pix WS/NCC/141/1

M6.8 56 Churches Conservation Trust WS/NCC/56/1 M6.8 1655 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/1655/1 M6.8 1659 WS/1659/1 The Landmark Trust WS/NCC/1659/1 M6.8 1714 Mr & Mrs Flowers WS/NCC/1714/1 M6.8 27 Mr Dee WS/NCC/27/1 M6.8 86 Mr Radford WS/NCC/86/1 M6.8 184 Mrs Longson WS/NCC/184/1 M6.8 1691 Harris WS/NCC/1691/1 M6.8 91 Mr Savage WS/NCC/91/1 M6.8 1622 Mr Bowler WS/NCC/1622/1 M6.8 719 Edward WS/NCC/719/1 M6.8 359 Marsden WS/NCC/359/1 M6.8 728 Watson WS/NCC/728/1 M6.8 337 Grove WS/NCC/337/1 M6.8 1690 Mrs Batty WS/NCC/1690/1 M6.8 423 Mr Hodgson WS/NCC/423/1 M6.8 421 POE/WLDC/421/1 West Lindsey District Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1-3

M6.8 420 Palliaser WS/NCC/420/1 M6.8 395 Mr Mann MP WS/NCC/395/1 M6.8 343 Everton Parish Council WS/NCC/343/1 M6.8 490 Mr Hancock WS/NCC/490/1 M6.8 1591 POE/SQUAT/1591/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1-3

M6.8 308 POE/RAGE/308/1 Residents Against Gravel Extraction POE/NCC/STURTON/1-3

M6.8 87 Mrs Leng WS/NCC/87/1 M6.8 1651 Councillor Burton WS/NCC/1651/1 M6.8 1687 Sewell WS/NCC/1687/1 M6.8 1688 Woods WS/NCC/1688/1 M6.8 705 Mr & Mrs Maw WS/NCC/705/1 M6.8 358 Marsden WS/NCC/358/1 M6.8 584 The Ramblers Association WS/NCC/584/1 M6.8 704 Birkett WS/NCC/704/1 M6.8 1317 Simpson WS/NCC/1317/1 M6.8 702 Mr Morris WS/NCC/702/1 M6.8 730 Cater WS/NCC/730/1 M6.8 700 Carter WS/NCC/700/1 M6.8 699 Mr & Mrs Johnson WS/NCC/699/1 M6.8 309 Mr Coomber WS/NCC/309/1 M6.8 763 Mr & Mrs Bull WS/NCC/763/1 M6.8 746 Mr & Mrs Bloomer WS/NCC/746/1 M6.8 701 Mr & Mrs Felow WS/NCC/701/1 M6.8 743 Sharpe WS/NCC/743/1 M6.8 753 Mrs Fisher WS/NCC/753/1 M6.8 927 POE/ST MC/927/1 St Mary's Knaith Parochial Church Council POE/NCC/STURTON/2-3

M6.8 986 Mr Jubb WS/NCC/986/1 M6.8 985 Heggs WS/NCC/985/1 M6.8 974 Mr & Mrs Wilson WS/NCC/974/1 M6.8 973 Robinson WS/NCC/973/1 M6.8 972 Robinson WS/NCC/972/1 M6.8 971 Mrs Robinson WS/NCC/971/1 M6.8 1692 Mr & Mrs Arden WS/NCC/1692/1 M6.8 747 Walker WS/NCC/747/1 M6.8 89 Mr Savage WS/NCC/89/1 M6.8 968 Tillotson WS/NCC/968/1 M6.8 1310 POE/KNIGHT/1310/1 Councillor Knight POE/NCC/STURTON/1-2

M6.8 1313 Wood WS/NCC/1313/1 M6.8 1314 Wood WS/NCC/1314/1 M6.8 760 Mr & Mrs Fox WS/NCC/760/1 M6.8 766 Wilesher WS/NCC/766/1 M6.8 745 Boylan WS/NCC/745/1 M6.8 742 Rumbelow WS/NCC/742/1 M6.8 967 Tillotson WS/NCC/967/1 M6.8 723 Bingham WS/NCC/723/1 M6.8 744 Belton WS/NCC/744/1 M6.8 721 Colley WS/NCC/721/1 M6.8 720 Otter WS/NCC/720/1 M6.8 762 Mrs Fenwick WS/NCC/762/1 M6.8 1699 Mr Pring WS/NCC/1699/1 M6.8 1694 Bailey WS/NCC/1694/1 M6.8 1693 Miss Briggs WS/NCC/1693/1 M6.8 748 Mr Wardle WS/NCC/748/1 M6.8 1696 Edwards WS/NCC/1696/1 M6.8 1697 Edwards WS/NCC/1697/1 M6.8 116 Chadwick WS/NCC/116/1 M6.8 1698 Edwards WS/NCC/1698/1 M6.8 140 Mr & Mrs Childs WS/NCC/140/1 M6.8 180 Harrison WS/NCC/180/1 M6.8 1700 Gorton WS/NCC/1700/1 M6.8 142 Mr & Mrs Burkett WS/NCC/142/1 M6.8 703 Mr & Mrs Douce WS/NCC/703/1 M6.8 189 Mr & Mrs Kirk WS/NCC/189/1 M6.8 706 Mrs Hymers WS/NCC/706/1 M6.8 749 Miss Miles WS/NCC/749/1 M6.8 750 Mr & Mrs Johnston WS/NCC/750/1 M6.8 764 POE/TILLEY/764/1 Tilley POE/NCC/STURTON/1-2 M6.8 181 Bowler WS/NCC/181/1 M6.8 752 Pettinger WS/NCC/752/1 M6.8 754 Mr & Mrs Noble WS/NCC/754/1 M6.8 755 Mr Vernon WS/NCC/755/1 M6.8 756 Mr & Mrs Fenwick WS/NCC/756/1 M6.8 751 Mr & Mrs Wain WS/NCC/751/1 M6.8 758 Mr Topp WS/NCC/758/1 M6.8 759 Hardwick WS/NCC/759/1 M6.8 761 Mr Wilkins WS/NCC/761/1 M6.8 757 Fox WS/NCC/757/1 M6.8 2304 POE/SQUAT/2304/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1/3 M6.8 2085 The Trustees of GMT Foljambe's 1996

Discretionary Settlement WS/NCC/2085/1

M6.8 2151 POE/BURKE/2151/1 Mr & Mrs Burke POE/NCC/STURTON/1/3

M6.8 2169 Edwards WS/NCC/2169/1

M6.8 2110 Sturton le Steeple Parish Council WS/NCC/2110/1

M6.9 1628 Crookes WS/NCC/1628/1 M6.9 950 Kemp WS/NCC/950/1 M6.9 71 Mr & Mrs Osborn WS/NCC/71/1 M6.9 1589 Hayton Parish Council WS/NCC/1589/1 M6.9 471 Bassetlaw Friends of the Earth WS/NCC/471/1 M6.9 1710 Witts WS/NCC/1710/1 M6.9 947 Mr & Mrs Plumb WS/NCC/947/1 M6.9 566 Rowland WS/NCC/566/1

M6.9 58 Mr Framp WS/NCC/58/1 M6.9 1598 Mr Roberts WS/NCC/1598/1 M6.9 954 Mr & Mrs Heald WS/NCC/954/1 M6.9 1315 Birch WS/NCC/1315/1 M6.9 970 Mr Hobson WS/NCC/970/1 M6.9 958 Buckley WS/NCC/958/1 M6.9 948 Potts WS/NCC/948/1 M6.9 949 Brady WS/NCC/949/1 M6.9 957 Dixon WS/NCC/957/1 M6.9 955 Merrygold WS/NCC/955/1 M6.9 952 Roberts WS/NCC/952/1 M6.9 57 Mrs Hall WS/NCC/57/1 M6.9 953 Wilson WS/NCC/953/1 M6.9 671 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/671/1 M6.9 1650 POE/OATES/1650/1 Oates POE/NCC/OATES/1 M6.9 951 Baker WS/NCC/951/1 M6.9 956 Hepplestone WS/NCC/956/1 M6.9 983 Mr Ratcliffe WS/NCC/983/1 M6.9 497 Mr Smith WS/NCC/497/1 M6.9 943 Barclay WS/NCC/943/1 M6.9 357 Mr & Mrs Stokes WS/NCC/357/1 M6.9 946 Hitchenor WS/NCC/946/1 M6.9 945 Cooper WS/NCC/945/1 M6.9 356 Price WS/NCC/356/1 M6.9 51 Dr & Mrs Grant WS/NCC/51/1 M6.9 944 White WS/NCC/944/1

6.103(e) 2116 POE/OATES/2116/1 Oates POE/NCC/OATES/1

6.104 697 POE/TARMAC/697/1 Tarmac Central Ltd POE/NCC/697/1-2 6.110 406 Misson Parish Council WS/NCC/406/1 6.111 382 WS/382/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/382/1

6.111 2053 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/2053/1

6.112 383 WS/383/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/383/1

6.112 2056 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/2056/1

6.113 384 WS/384/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/384/1

M6.10 37 Bidewell WS/NCC/37/1 M6.10 215 Mr & Mrs Allan WS/NCC/215/1 M6.10 110 Willerton WS/NCC/110/1 M6.10 385 WS/385/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/385/1

6.114 1630 POE/HANSON/ 1630/1 Hanson Aggregates North POE/NCC/1725/1 6.114 2318 POE/HANSON/ 2318/1 Hanson Aggregates North POE/NCC/1725/1

6.114a 2319 POE/HANSON/ 2319/1 Hanson Aggregates North POE/NCC/1725/1 1722 POE/AGG IND/1722/1-2 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd POE/NCC/1722/1-2 1721 POE/TARMAC/1721/1 Tarmac Central Ltd POE/NCC/1721/1-2

1725 POE/HANSON/ 1725/1 Hanson Aggregates North POE/NCC/1725/1 1726 Rotherham Sand and Gravel WS/NCC/1726/1 1648 WS/1648/1-2 Latham Farms WS/NCC/1648/1

1681 POE/ENNSTONE/ 1681/1-4

Ennstone Breedon POE/NCC/ENNSTONE/1-3

1727 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/1727/1 1728 POE/LAFARGE/ 1728/1 Lafarge Aggregates POE/NCC/1728/1-2

1730 WS/1730/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team WS/NCC/1730/1-2

1709 Mr Wilkinson WS/NCC/1709/1 1708 WS/1708/1 Mr Scott WS/NCC/1708/1


7.40 698 Tarmac Central Ltd WS/NCC/698/1 M7.5 97 Mr Butt WS/NCC/97/1

7.70 1649 Mansfield Sand Co. Ltd WS/NCC/1649/1 8.18 1702 WS/1702/1 Derbyshire County Council WS/NCC/1702/1 8.18 1705 Derby City Council WS/NCC/1705/1

475 UK Coal Mining Ltd WS/NCC/475/1 672 POE/CPRE/672/1

WS/672/1 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) POE/NCC/672/1-2

WS/NCC/393/1 9.14 391 WS/391/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/391/1 9.14 510 R.M.C. Plc Group WS/NCC/510/1 10.6 673 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/673/1 10.6 122 Mr & Mrs Harrington WS/NCC/122/1 10.7 123 Mr & Mrs Harrington WS/NCC/123/1 10.7 674 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/674

10.11 675 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/675/1 10.11 124 Mr & Mrs Harrington WS/NCC/124/1 10.13 676 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/676/1

M10.2 926 POE/BROWN/926/1 Mrs Brown POE/NCC/926/1 M10.3 544 WS/544/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/544/1

11.15-11.18 929 WS/929/1 HJ Banks & Co. Ltd. WS/NCC/929/1 11.15-11.18 1643 WS/1643/1-3 Hanson Brick Ltd WS/NCC/1643/1

11.24(c) 472 Milner WS/NCC/472/1 11.24(c) 2192 WS/2192/1-3 Hanson Brick Ltd WS/NCC/2192/1 11.24(c) 2119 POE/KIRTON

PC/2119/1 Kirton Parish Council POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-3

11.24(d) 2086 Batty WS/NCC/2086/1

11.24(d) 2120 POE/KIRTON PC/2120/1

Kirton Parish Council POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-3

11.24(d) 2117 WS/2117/1 Wallace WS/NCC/2117/1

11.24(d) 2074 Batty WS/NCC/2074/1

11.24(d) 2072 Mrs Challender WS/NCC/2072/1

11.24(d) 2164 Mr Pickering WS/NCC/2164/1

11.24(d) 2265 Mr Heafield WS/NCC/2265/1

11.24(d) 2130 Moxon WS/NCC/2130/1

11.24(d) 2343 Hemming WS/NCC/2343/1

11.24(d) 2193 WS/2193/1-3 Hanson Brick Ltd WS/NCC/2193/1 11.24(d) 2070 POE/CHALLENDER/

2070/1 Mr Challender POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-4

11.24(d) 2081 Mr Stones WS/NCC/2081/1

11.24(d) 2066 Batty WS/NCC/2066/1

11.24(d) 2132 WS/2132/1 Mrs Wallace WS/NCC/2132/1

M11.1 22 Mrs Stones WS/NCC/22/1 M11.1 960 Dr & Mrs Staley WS/NCC/960/1 M11.1 1234 Batty WS/NCC/1234/1 M11.1 283 Mr Middleton WS/NCC/283/1 M11.1 81 Mrs Kilross WS/NCC/81/1 M11.1 1236 Batty WS/NCC/1236/1 M11.1 1235 Batty WS/NCC/1235/1 M11.1 282 Wallace WS/NCC/282/1 M11.1 1237 Moxon WS/NCC/1237/1 M11.1 1311 Clipson WS/NCC/1311/1 M11.1 25 POE/CHALLENDER/

25/1 Mrs Challender POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-4

M11.1 24 POE/CHALLENDER/ 24/1

Mr Challender POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-4

M11.1 80 Mrs Lainsbury WS/NCC/80/1

M11.1 284 Plant WS/NCC/284/1 M11.1 1218 Metcalfe WS/NCC/1218/1 M11.1 1217 Mrs Wolosiuk WS/NCC/1217/1 M11.1 49 POE/KIRTON PC/49/1 Kirton Parish Council POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-4 M11.1 21 Mr Stones WS/NCC/21/1 M11.1 244 Mr Bithell WS/NCC/244/1 M11.1 245 Kennedy WS/NCC/245/1 M11.1 1316 Middleton WS/NCC/1316/1 M11.1 254 Mr & Mrs Skelton WS/NCC/254/1 M11.1 53 Taylor WS/NCC/53/1 M11.1 959 Mrs Riley WS/NCC/959/1 M11.1 281 Mrs Wallace WS/NCC/281/1 M11.1 62 Mr Beale WS/NCC/62/1 M11.1 52 Mrs Taylor WS/NCC/52/1 M11.1 331 Pebworth WS/NCC/331/1

11.19-11.24 M11.1 1644 WS/1644/1-3 Hanson Brick Ltd WS/NCC/1644 11.27 2321 POE/IBSTOCK/ 2321/

1-3 Ibstock Brick Ltd POE/NCC/2321/1/3

11.27 2105 Mr Kesson WS/NCC/2105

11.27 2195 WS/2195/1 HJ Banks & Co. Ltd. WS/NCC/2195/1

11.27 2166 POE/BAND/2166/1 Bilsthorpe Against New Dump POE/NCC/2166/1

11.28 2322 POE/IBSTOCK/ 2322/1 Ibstock Brick Ltd POE/NCC/2322/1/3

11.28 2106 Mr Kesson WS/NCC/2106/1

11.28 2167 POE/BAND/2167/1 Bilsthorpe Against New Dump POE/NCC/2167/1

M11.2 1679 POE/IBSTOCK/ 1679/ 1-3

Ibstock Brick Ltd POE/NCC/1679/1/3

M11.2 1718 POE/IBSTOCK/ 1718/1 Ibstock Brick Ltd POE/NCC/1718/1/3

11.28-11.29 928 WS/928/1 HJ Banks & Co. Ltd. WS/NCC/928/1 609 Greasley Parish Council WS/NCC/609/1

1686 UK Coal Mining Ltd WS/NCC/1686/1 1652 Coal Authority WS/NCC/1652/1

12.6 2142 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/2142/1

12.6 2068 Network Rail WS/NCC/2068/1

12.6 2128 English Heritage (East Midlands Region) WS/NCC/2128/1

12.6 2316 POE/NWT/2316/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust POE/NCC/2316/1

12.6 2293 WS/2293/1 UK Coal Mining Ltd WS/NCC/2293/1

12.6 2064 UK Coal Mining Ltd WS/NCC/2064/1

M12.1 679 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/679/1 M12.1 546 POE/NWT/546/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust POE/NCC/546/1 M12.1 638 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/638/1 M12.1 484 R.S.P.B. (NW Region) WS/NCC/484/1 M12.1 571 WS/571/1 Ashfield District Council WS/NCC/571/1

M12.1 2317 POE/NWT/2317/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust POE/NCC/2317/1

M12.1 2253 Miss Mackie WS/NCC/2253/1

M12.1 2294 WS/2294/1 UK Coal Mining Ltd WS/NCC/2294/1


M12.1 2143 Government Office for the East Midlands WS/NCC/2143/1

M12.2 680 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/680/1 12.31 2080 WS/2080/1 The Land and Development Practice WS/NCC/2080/1

M12.6 1642 Ogden Group of Companies WS/NCC/1642/1 M12.7 682 C.P.R.E. (Notts Branch) WS/NCC/682/1 M12.7 572 WS/572/1 Ashfield District Council WS/NCC/572/1 M12.7 608 Greasley Parish Council WS/NCC/608/1

M13.7 554 WS/554/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust WS/NCC/554/1 791 English Nature (E Midlands Team) WS/NCC/554/1

Proposals Map 393 WS/393/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/393/1 Proposals Map 2003 POE/ST MC/2003/1 St Mary's Knaith Parochial Church Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1

Proposals Map 2305 POE/SQUAT/2305/1 Sturton Quarry Action Team POE/NCC/STURTON/1

Proposals Map 2191 The Ramblers Association WS/NCC/2191/1

Proposals Map 2170 Edwards WS/NCC/2170/1

Proposals Map 2163 POE/RAGE/2163/1 Residents Against Gravel Extraction POE/NCC/STURTON/1

Proposals Map 2260 POE/WLDC/2260/1 West Lindsey District Council POE/NCC/STURTON/1

Proposals Map 2152 POE/BURKE/2152/1 Mr & Mrs Burke POE/NCC/STURTON/1

Proposals Map 394 WS/394/1 Lafarge Aggregates WS/NCC/394/1 Proposals Map 14 2133 WS/2133/1 Mrs Wallace WS/NCC/2133/1

Proposals Map 14 2131 Moxon WS/NCC/2131/1

Proposals Map 14 2067 Batty WS/NCC/2067/1

Proposals Map 14 2344 Hemming WS/NCC/2344/1


Proposals Map 14 2082 Mr Stones WS/NCC/2082/1

Proposals Map 14 2073 POE/CHALLENDER/ 2073/1

Mrs Challender POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-4

Proposals Map 14 2118 Wallace WS/NCC/2118/1

Proposals Map 14 2121 POE/KIRTON PC/ 2121/1

Kirton Parish Council POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-4

Proposals Map 14 2266 Mr Heafield WS/NCC/2266/1

Proposals Map 14 2165 Mr Pickering WS/NCC/2165/1


Proposals Map 14 2071 POE/CHALLENDER/ 2071/1

Mr Challender POE/NCC/KIRTON/1-4

Proposals Map 548 POE/NWT/548/1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust POE/NCC/548/1 Proposals Map 2129 English Heritage (East Midlands Region) WS/NCC/2129/1

Appendix 2

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Public Inquiry Appearances

For Nottinghamshire County Council

Mr P Brown of Counsel called:

Mr W Allum BSc (Hons) FIQ

Mr J Smith BSc (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI

Mr C Hoult BA B Phil MRTPI MIQ

Miss A Hack BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI

Mr M Hankin BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI

Mr P Chamberlain I Eng FIHIE

Mr J Mordan BA (Hons) MA IHBC

Mrs C Gillespie BSc (Hons) MA MLI

Dr T Hart MA PHD

Mr T Turner BSc (Hons) MSc

Mr D Brown MLI

4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH

Team Manager, Minerals and Waste Policy Nottinghamshire County Council

Minerals Local Plan Officer Nottinghamshire County Council

Team Manager, Development Control Nottinghamshire County Council

Senior Planning Officer Nottinghamshire County Council

Senior Planning Officer Nottinghamshire County Council

Principal Highways Development Control Officer Nottinghamshire County Council

Senior Historic Buildings Officer Nottinghamshire County Council

Team Manager, Landscape and Reclamation Team Nottinghamshire County Council

Senior Definitive Rights of Way Officer Nottinghamshire County Council

Principal Enforcement Officer Nottinghamshire County Council

Associate David Tyldesley and Associates Sherwood House 144 Annesley Road Hucknall Nottingham NG15 7DD

Mr C Hedges BSc (Hons) C Geol

Mr T Andrews B Eng (Hons) C Eng MICE

Mr D Atkinson BSc MRICS MIQ

Mr D Tyldesley MIEEM FRTPI FRSA

For the Objectors

Mr R G Bows

Mr I John BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI

Mr K Maffam

1

Chartered Geologist Golder Associates (UK) Limited

st Floor Clyde House Reform Road Maidenhead Berkshire SL6 8BY

Development Control Team Leader Environment Agency Trentside Offices Scarrington Road West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 5FA

Lafarge Aggregates Limited Northern Service Centre PO Box 36 Retford Road Worksop S81 7YU

David Tyldesley and Associates Sherwood House 144 Annesley Road Hucknall Nottingham NG15 7DD

Down Green Nottingham Road Thurgarton Nottingham NG14 7GZ

Viridor Waste Management Great Western House Station Approach Taunton TA1 1QW

Selston Parish Council The Parish Hall Mansfield Road Selston Nottingham NG16 6EE

Mr J Kesson Bilsthorpe Against New Dump 6 Clumber Way Bilsthorpe Nottingham NG22 8SF

Mr J Penny BSc (Hons) MRICS MIQ Aggregate Industries UK Limited Croft House Huncote Road Croft Leicestershire LE9 3GS

Mr K Frost Dip TP MRTPI RMC (UK) RMC House Coldharbour Lane Thorpe Egham Surrey TW20 8TD

M D Pollock BSc (Hons) Dip TP Quarry Products Association MRTPI MIQ 38-44 Gillingham Street

London SW1V 1HU

Mr L Teasdale Council to Protect Rural England c/o Mrs C Collins Church End 61 Mina Street Kinoulton Nottingham NG12 3EL

Cllr B Knight Member for Lincolnshire County Council – Gainsborough Rural South Members’ Room Lincolnshire County Council Lincoln LN1 1DN

Mr A Northcote Dip TP Dip URP MA Forward Planning Manager MRTPI West Lindsey District Council

26 Spital Terrace Gainsborough Lincolnshire DN21 2HG

Mr J Blow Residents Against Gravel Extraction 1 White Cottages Knaith Gainsborough Lincolnshire DN21 5PE

Mr A Gibson and Mrs R Earp Sturton Quarry Action Team Ferry House Littleborough Retford DN22 0HD

Mr V Coaker MP Member of Parliament for Gedling 2A Parkyn Road Daybrook Nottingham NG5 6BG

Mr R Fell Bescaby Lowdham Road Gunthorpe Nottingham NG14 7EP

Mr J Cook Knowsley House Cottage Pasture Lane Gunthorpe Nottingham NG14 7EQ

Mr D Moran The Croft Lowdham Road Gunthorpe Nottingham NG14 7ES

Mr H Oates Brambles Church Lane Hayton Retford DN22 9LD

Mr and Mrs Challender 10 Kirton Park Kirton Newark NG22 9LR

Mrs J Bradley Head of Conservation Policy and Planning Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust The Ragged School Brook Street Nottingham NG1 1EA

Mr D Brock of Counsel (for Lafarge Mills and Reeve Aggregates Limited) called Francis House

112 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 1PH

Mr M Walker Dip TP MRTPI (for Divisional Director, Planning and Development Lafarge Aggregates) W A Fairhurst and Partners

1 Arngrove Court Barrack Road Newcastle NE4 6DB

Mr D Atkinson BSc MRICS MIQ Senior Planning and Estates Manager Lafarge Aggregates Limited Northern Service Centre PO Box 36 Retford Road Worksop S81 7YU

J H Walker 1 Mint Lane Lincoln LN1 1UD

Mr Brown The Elms Farm Costock Near Loughborough Leicestershire LE12 6XA

Mr J Taylor DCE CEng FICE Dosser Group FCIWEM FconsE (for Mr and Mrs J B Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Burke) called Heworth House

York YO31 0RP

Mr and Mrs J B Burke

Mrs J O’Neill (who gave evidence herself and called)

Mr J Byron

Mr G Ball

Mr D Tyldesley MIEEM FRTPI FRSA (for Kirton Parish Council) called

Mr and Mrs Wildgust

Mr M Kingston QC of Counsel (for Ennstone Breedon Limited) called

Mr S Lenton (for Ennstone Breedon Limited)

Knaith Hall Knaith Gainsborough DN21 5PE

Burton Joyce Residents Association 11 Wellington Road Burton Joyce Nottingham NG14 5GU

Burton Joyce Residents Association

Hillside Drive Burton Joyce Nottingham

David Tyldesley and Associates Sherwood House 144 Annesley Road Hucknall Nottingham NG15 7DD

Kirton Parish Council Ivy Cottage Main Street Kirton Newark Nottingham NG22 9LP

No 5 Chambers 5 Fountain Court Steelhouse Lane Birmingham B4 6DR

Chartered Minerals Surveyor SLR Consulting Limited Building 1 Meadowbank Way Eastwood Nottingham NG16 3TT

Mr R Kell MIQ

Mr I Lamond (for Aggregate Industries) called

Mr J Hill FRICS FIQ (for Aggregate Industries)

Mrs S Planton Dip LA MLI (for Aggregate Industries)

Mr B Muskatt (for Bulcote Residents Action Group) called

Mr R Beckett

Mr I Johnson BSc (Hons) MSc MCSM MIAEG CGeol FGS (for Bulcote Residents Action Group)

Mr P Rogan BA DipArch PGDipArchPrac ACIOB MBIAT AABC RIBA (for Bulcote Residents Action Group)

Planning and Estates Manager Ennstone Breedon Limited Breedon on the Hill Derby DE73 1AP

Stephens and Scown 3 Cross Lane St Austall Cornwall PL25 4AX

Bowman Planton Limited Bank House 108 Litchfield Road Stafford ST17 4ER

Bowman Planton Limited Bank House 108 Litchfield Road Stafford ST17 4ER

Berryman Shacklock Park House Friar Lane Nottingham NG1 6DN

Bulcote Residents Action Group The Mews Bulcote Nottingham NG14 5HA

Joynes Pike and Associates Limited Vivian House Vivian Avenue Nottingham NG1 5AF

Mark Stewart Architecture Limited 34a Musters Road West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7PL

Mr P Tucker of Counsel (for Tarmac Kings Chambers Central Limited) called 40 King Street

Manchester M2 6BA

Mr N Beards BSc MRICS MIQ Tarmac Central Limited Tunstead House Buxton Derbyshire SK17 8TG

Mr R Bainsfair BA 9Hons) BLA MLI Senior Landscape Architect (for Tarmac Central Limited) SLR Consulting Limited

Building 1 Meadowbank Way Eastwood Nottingham NG16 3TT

Mr D Park of Counsel (for Ibstock No 5 Chambers Brick) called 5 Fountain Court

Steelhouse Lane Birmingham B4 6DR

Mr J Hill FRICS FIQ (for Ibstock Bowman Planton Limited Brick) Bank House

108 Litchfield Road Stafford ST17 4ER

Mr J Bowman Dip LA FIQ (for Ibstock Bowman Planton Limited Brick) Bank House

108 Litchfield Road Stafford ST17 4ER

Mr K Morton Production Director Ibstock Brick Limited Over Lane Almondsbury Bristol BS12 4BX

Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan …...Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local...

Documents

Transcript of Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan …...Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local...