Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

Representations - by respondent

Volume 6 of 11 Respondent numbers 2994 - 3754

2994 29886 2994 29886

2997 29895 2997 29895

3001 29896 3001 29896

John Wilson

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 21 March 2016 09:11 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29306

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Mr Paul Tunaley,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29306 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

I strongly object on the grounds of the additional heavy traffic burden on the already chaotic road system around Newark, the negative environmental impact on the local amenities (Stapleford Woods, Newark Air Museum, The Newark Showground), the potential adverse effects on local air quality and the consequential effects on the health and welfare of the local population, and the huge loss of agricultural land.

CHANGE TO PLAN

The Coddington option should be removed from the Plan

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

This email is acknowledgement of the receipt of your representation. It is NOT confirmation that the representation has yet been registered. You will not receive any further notification by email that your representation has been registered until the end of the participation period.

1 3026 30027

25.03.2016

Dear Sir or Madam

Re: Proposed Inclusion of Flash Farm to the Minerals Local Plan

I am strongly opposed to the proposed quarry at Flash Farm, Newark on Trent for the following reasons:

1) Demand – I do not believe that under the current climate there is the requirement for the quantities of material that is to be extracted from the Flash Farm site. In the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates Assessment – April 2015 it states: The latest 10 year average production figures have fallen for all aggregate minerals since the first LAA was compiled in 2011. The three year averages for sand and gravel and Sherwood Sandstone over the same period have seen very small increase. The report goes on to state that: Based on the current evidence it is not considered that there is a need to amend the demand forecast set out in the emerging Minerals Local Plan as the 2011 LAA figures take into account of both a period of economic growth and recession.

There are no significant infrastructure projects taking place in or around Newark on Trent other than proposed housing estates. However, the construction of houses only utilises 20% of the aggregates used therefore it is safe to say that the majority of this material will be exported out of the county, as identified in Section 3.7 of the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Local Aggregates Assessment – April 2015, and in doing so add to the local road congestion. When widening the A46 there was significant excess in the cut volumes that had to be removed from the site and this is often the case when trying to achieve a sustainable design and reduce resource utilisation.

2) Environment – Averham Village sits in the flood plain of the River Trent (E.A. flood zone 2/3) and the creation of such a large deep void to the north of the village could have a significant impact on the free draining capability of the topography. This should be taken fully into consideration and advice sought from the Environmental Agency of the impact on the village.

3) Ecology – Flash Farm has a considerable number hedgerows that are home to a number of species of birds that are categorised as ‘rare and declining’ and the removal of the hedgerows will have an impact on the bird numbers. There are also considerable wild flowers that attract many species of butterfly which are currently in decline.

4) Noise, Nuisance and Visual Intrusion – The extraction and movement of aggregates is undertaken by large tracked vehicles which will be heard throughout the extended periods proposed for the development. The A617 creates significant noise at peak times but beyond this the ambiance is quite tranquil and the sound of revering sirens, crushing plant and continuous conveyors will have an impact on the local residents.

By their very nature, sand and gravel are very dusty when being extracted and transported. Although not a hazard to human health the dust can become a nuisance to property situated locally to the development. The quarry will require significant dust suppression particularly in the summer period and it is hoped that the water will be from a sustainable source.

My property is approximately 100m away from the edge of the proposed quarry. During the presentation by Mick George Ltd. they presented a drawing that shows soil mounds over 5m in height to provide visual screening against the quarry. I believe that this will have a drastic impact on my view from my Sun Room and the rear of my property

5) Transport – The A617 is a major route between Lincoln and Newark to Nottingham has significant levels of medium and heavy goods vehicles. Kelham Bridge is continuously a bottleneck and creates significant tailbacks at peak times. There have also been a significant number of road traffic accidents that have blocked the road for significant periods of time. These conditions make it difficult for emergency vehicles to reach the villages to the west of Newark. The increased volume of traffic by the vehicle movements from the quarry will just compound the current situation.

The proposed access to the quarry is situated between the two sets of traffic lights just after Averham Village. Considering that this road has a speed limit of fifty miles per hour I believe that the proposed junction has the potential for causing accidents on a very busy road.

Yours sincerely

Neil Wright MSc. C Eng MICE MAPM ICIOB

3037 29242 3037 29242

3037 30001

From: Frances Overbury > Sent: 08 March 2016 20:43 To: Development Planning Subject: Formal Objection

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Nottinghamshire County Council,

I am writing to lodge a personal objection to the Local Minerals Plan for Coddington. Please can you confirm receipt of this email?

I am very concerned about the terrible pressure all the additional traffic will cause around Newark especially at the already strained junctions of the A17, A46 and A1. Also the traffic through our village will no doubt increase. Also the dangers faced by our young daughter who is now 2 years old. We live very close to the site and she will be attending the local Coddington school which is also in a potentially affected proximity. I am also very worried about the affects to our property, dust, foundations and house price and also the affects to our beautiful neighbouring woodlands. We object as a family and believe that the Coddington site is not suitable because of the overwhelming deficits to the plan.

Regards, Mrs Frances Overbury )

Sent from my iPhone

Frances Overbury BA(Hons) Dip. CMIT MIMIT Piano Tuner & Technician for the East Midlands

1 Office use only Person No: 3038 Part A – Personal details Rep Nos: 29719

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Dr First name Liz Last name Mossop Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

N/A

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination X The publication of the recommendations of the inspector X The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan X If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

If your representation(s) is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination? Please note that if you do not participate at the oral examination your representations will be dealt with as written representations and carry the same weight as those presented orally. Yes, I wish to participate at No, I do not wish to participate X the oral examination at the oral examination

Signature N/A – electronic submission Date 28 March 2016 Name Liz Mossop If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Part B – Your representation Person No: 3038 Rep No: 29719 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy MP2 Site code Map/Plan Paragraph 4.15 Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes X No Sound? Yes X No If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with No (2) Justified? No (3) Effective? No No prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

I fully SUPPORT the Submission Draft of the Minerals Local Plan in respect of EXCLUSION of a site at Barton in Fabis as the overall environmental impacts are considered more severe than at other sites as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanies the Local Plan. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No X If Yes, please give details

Signature N/A – electronic submission Date 28 March 2016 Name Liz Mossop If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature 3044 29902 3044 29902

3045 29903 3045 29903

3063 29891 3063 29891

3068 29890 3068 29890

Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 13:26 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29546

Jonathan Lightbody,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29546 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2r ‐ Shelford Support/Object: Object

As a resident of Hockerton I believe this plan to be unsound as it is based on outdated information and has not given consideration to modern traffic levels.

I feel it unsound because it is also based upon unjustified predictions been based upon sales figures from 2002‐ 2011, whereas the Local Aggregates Assessment for the period 2004‐2013 is more up to date and relevant; indeed, these figures show clearly that long term demand for aggregates is falling to an extent that production from Flash Farm will be surplus to requirements. Indeed reserve resources are still available.

Furthermore, any sound planning would take into consideration modern building practices which include significant recycling of materials used as replacements for aggregates.

The plan completely disregards the concerns of residents (together with those from surrounding villages) in relation to increased heavy traffic on roads that are already overloaded. Over 80,000 vehicles use the A617 through Hockerton & Kirklington each week. A recent noise survey has concluded noise levels to be above World Health Organisation and other relevant limits; more traffic will serve to add to this nuisance.

Furthermore, no account has been taken of recycling and infill. It is understood the proposed developer is looking to bring in approximately 200,000 tonnes of waste each year which will further increase the volume of heavy traffic through the villages ‐ adding to noise and air pollution. An unsound plan has also not considered the fact that Nottinghamshire doesn't produce this much landfill so it will be transported in from surrounding counties, thus jamming the roads, adding to noise and pollution.

The plan is so unsound it is ridiculous to have been considered this far into the process.

I'm not against the idea of gravel pits locally but I am against amateurish planning processes and decisions that clearly don't consider any consequential analysis.

SUMMARY

It's unsound because the plan uses old data, doesn't consider recent traffic levels or traffic noise which exceeds WHO safe limits.

It doesn't consider the proposed plan of a supermarket at Newark roundabout, it doesn't consider current levels of traffic volume; it's so amateurish it is extremely unsound and almost childlike in naivety .

CHANGE TO PLAN 1

Consider current traffic volumes consider recent noise surveys Consider up to date building requirements Consider up to date aggregate requirements Resubmit when consequential analysis has been carried out if it is still considered sound.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 13:28 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29547

Jonathan Lightbody,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29547 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2p ‐ Flash Farm Support/Object: Object

As a resident of Hockerton I believe this plan to be unsound as it is based on outdated information and has not given consideration to modern traffic levels.

Furthermore, any sound planning would take into consideration modern building practices which include significant recycling of materials used as replacements for aggregates.

The plan is so unsound it is ridiculous to have been considered this far into the process.

I'm not against the idea of gravel pits locally but I am against amateurish planning processes and decisions that clearly don't consider any consequential analysis.

SUMMARY

It's unsound because the plan uses old data, doesn't consider recent traffic levels or traffic noise which exceeds WHO safe limits. It doesn't consider the proposed plan of a supermarket at Newark roundabout, it doesn't consider current levels of traffic volume; it's so amateurish it is extremely unsound and almost childlike in naivety .

CHANGE TO PLAN

1 Consider current traffic volumes consider recent noise surveys Consider up to date building requirements Consider up to date aggregate requirements Resubmit when consequential analysis has been carried out if it is still considered sound.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Office use only Person No: 3075

Rep Nos: 29808 Part A – Personal details

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mr & Mrs First name Ralph & Anna Last name Davies Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent? 2

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination Yes The publication of the recommendations of the inspector Yes The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan Yes If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

Signature Date 29th March 2016 Name Ralph Davies If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3075 Rep No: 29808 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy x Site code Map/Plan x Paragraph Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes No Sound? Yes No x If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with x (2) Justified? x (3) Effective? x x prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

4. Please give details of why you consider the identified part of the document is not legally compliant or is unsound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please expand box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name. As residents of Caunton Road Hockerton we feel this to be an unsound proposal because it is based upon outdated information, unrealistic predictions, overlooks recycling and infill, and completely disregards the concerns of residents (together with those from surrounding villages) in relation to increased heavy traffic on roads that are already overloaded. We understand that the predictions have been based upon sales figures from 2002-2011, whereas the Local Aggregates Assessment for the period 2004-2013 is more up to date and relevant. These figures show clearly that long term demand is falling, and that production from Flash Farm will be surplus to requirements as unused quantities from current sites or those in reserve will still be available. Furthermore, no account has been taken of recycling and infill. It is understood the proposed developer is looking to bring in infill waste which will further increase the volume of heavy traffic through the village adding to noise and air pollution. Increased recycling and the new landfill tax may also mean that landfill is not readily available, bringing into question exactly what type of waste is being used and from what distance. There are no footpaths on Caunton Road and the carriageway is not as wide as two HGV lorries which to pass each other are either having to stop and fold their mirrors or more often they encroach onto the verges destroying them. In recent years we have lost approximately a metre width of roadside verge across the whole frontage of our home. Caunton Road is already being used as a ‘rat run’ by HGV’s to avoid congestion at Kelham Bridge; should this development proceed at Flash Farm this situation is going to get very much worse. Caunton Road is no longer safe for pedestrians and we feel trapped in our home 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Please note: You should provide as much information/justification in your representation as you feel necessary and appropriate because once you have submitted your representation there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to submit anything else unless requested to do so by the planning inspector. We feel that more up to date information should have been used, including 2015 traffic information, and understand that an imminent report (to be produced after the deadline for these comments) will substantiate the view that Flash Farm is surplus to the requirements of this plan.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes x No If Yes, please give details In 2014, at an earlier stage of this process, Hockerton Parish made representations against this proposal, on the grounds of unacceptable traffic volumes, increased noise and air pollution, and the impact on local villages. Along with many of Hockerton’s residents we also wrote personally to express our concerns

Signature Date 29th March 2016 Name Ralph Davies If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Office use only Person No: 3087 Rep Nos: Part A – Personal details 29751

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mrs First name Lindy Last name Wilson Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Signature Date 28th March 2016 Name Lindy Wilson If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: 3087 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29751 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy x Site code Map/Plan x Paragraph Other

The development plan contains a proposal to utilise the site for landfill which is against County Council policy and which will increase waste disposal costs through incurring further landfill taxes.

The extraction and transportation of minerals together with the transpotation of infill will significantly increase the quantity of heavy goods vehicles travelling on the A617 which already has a high degree of such traffic. This will cause detriment to local residents. The current noise level of traffic passing through Hockerton village is above expected environmnetal levels.

I would like to know if there has been an environmental impact assessment and flood risk assessment for the proposed development and if so the outcome of these assessments 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Please note: You should provide as much information/justification in your representation as you feel necessary and appropriate because once you have submitted your representation there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to submit anything else unless requested to do so by the planning inspector. More up to date information should have been used, including 2015 traffic information, and that an imminent report (to be produced after the deadline for these comments) will substantiate the view that Flash Farm is surplus to the requirements of this plan.

Full environmental impact assessment Flood risk assessment

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes x No If Yes, please give details Previous objection raised as part of previous consultation

Signature Date 28th March 2016 Name Lindy Wilson If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 16:31 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29343

David C Hedge,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29343 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

The proposed extraction of sand and gravel from land adjacent to A17 single carriage way is not feasible. This route is already a very congested road during the summer with holiday traffic and heavy goods vehicles heading to Lincolnshire. The damage that will be done to the Stapleford woods area, be it road and trees and wildlife is unacceptable. The traffic accidents on the three major roads in the area should be taken into account as the gridlock will be horrendous.

CHANGE TO PLAN

The is a need to look at the whole scheme again.

The document is unsound because it is not:

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:50 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29540

Mr Robert Campbell,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29540 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

During development of the Preferred Approach the Nature lobby (RSPB, Natural England, Notts Wildlife Trust) have pushed Notts County Council to support Biodiversity restoration to the extent that it has been written into the MLP that if a restoration requires little soil – ie lake and nature reserve with impoverished soil ‐ prime soil should be removed and used elsewhere.

Once soil is removed (overburden), and the gravel removed the water table will fill the hole creating a huge ‘lake’.

Overburden to create a nature reserve (filling government biodiversity quotas), takes the soil somewhere else more deserving?

However,locals value having good agricultural land on their doorstep and would regard this as asset stripping. Members of the public, and CAGE, would expect the site be restored as good agricultural land.

Coddington MP2o is at least two thirds Grade 2 + 3a – ‘Best & Most Versatile Land’ – hence NCC have to consider that aspect in the development brief.

The issue is that inert fill is a vanishing commodity,(no coal‐fired electricity generation or PFA fuel ash; building waste used as recycled aggregate on site; a requirement to show that anything you put in the hole is not reusable or recyclable) so if you have a high water table and gravel with little waste or overburden only a TINY fraction of the site can be restored as land surface – and the nature lobby have first call on that.

For Coddington the restoration of 126Ha (300acres) is described in Hanson’s 2008 document (we’ve just got hold of) suggests a “water based restoration scheme but there will be opportunities to restore parts of the site to agricultural and wet grassland areas. It is considered that any loss of agricultural land will be outweighed by a significant gain in biodiversity and amenity”

“It is envisaged that the allocation site will be progressively worked and restored in step with phased extraction. Topsoils and subsoils will be separately stripped and used tfor we grasslands and lake margin restoration purposes.”

In the MLP the Coddington site brief NCC talks about ‘Biodiversity‐Led Restoration (ie the nature reserve ‐aka wet grassland according to Hanson ‐ but gives lists of possible habitats, wet grassland being given priority over woodland) “however the higher quality agricultural soils shouldn be take into the final restoration process reflecting policy DM3 Agricultural land and soil quality.”

A key statement is “5.43. In some circumstances the relocation of soils of sufficient quality to ensure better agricultural use elsewhere may be appropriate to protect this important resource. Policy DM12: Restoration, After‐use and Aftercare provides further information.” 1

Some extracts from this Policy DM12: Restoration & Aftercare… 5.124 Most mineral workings are on agricultural land. In general where the best and most versatile land is taken for mineral extraction, it is important that the potential for land to be returned to an agricultural after‐use be maintained through appropriate landform and soil profiles. … 5.127. Soils must be adequately protected and maintained throughout the life of the development, particularly if a site comprises land that qualifies as best and most versatile agricultural land (see Policy DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality). Where necessary, proposals for minerals development should be supported by a site specific Land Classification Survey, undertaken by an independent expert to determine the grading and agricultural value of the proposed site. The survey should incorporate a report/statement of physical characteristics, providing detailed information about the soils, subsoils and overburden within the boundaries of the site.

Where the proposed after use is to be one which requires little or no soil, e.g. a lake or a nature reserve requiring impoverished soil resources, it would be better for soils to be removed from site and used beneficially elsewhere.

Clearly this long term restoration policy is at odds with the wishes of local residents and does not adhere to the requirements of DM12 ‐ 5.124 and 5.127.

SUMMARY

Local people would want to see proper restoration to agricultural use and not the development of a wildlife santuary.

Planned restoration will be heavily influenced by the justification that losses in high grade agricultural land will be compensated by gains in bio diversity etc.

However, why should the local community suffer several generations of upheaval merely to see it's valuable resource of high grade agricultural land be turned into yet another wildlife sanctuary.

This whole area is based on agriculture qualifying as "the best and most versatile land".

CHANGE TO PLAN

There must be a site specific "Land Classification Survey"

Once this is produced and a detailed study published regarding soils, subsoils and overburden we would want to see what plans can be introduced to ensure the land can be recovered for agricultural use.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 3160 29920 3160 29920

Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 09 March 2016 18:02 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29147

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Mr Jonathan Garner,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29147 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

We strongly object to the proposed Local Mineral Plan (Coddington Site).

1. Traffic congestion – The A17 is single carriageway and is heavily congested.

2. Highway Safety issues caused by the extra volume of heavy lorries.

3. Dust pollution.

4. Noise pollution.

5. Visual impact ‐ Coddington is a rural village; this quarry will turn it into an industrial site.

6. Detrimental impact upon the surrounding rural environment and neighboring conservation area.

7. Destruction of historic environment ‐ The site covers a significant part of the village’s medieval fields and pasture.

8. Negative impact on tourism ‐ The Showground and Air Museum

9. Potential for future exploitation and landfill site.

10. Negative impact on desirability of village.

11. Proximity to the village.

SUMMARY

The crux of this objection is that the proposed site is wholly unsuitable for the location, this being far too close to the village of Coddington. It will affect all residents greatly, not least because the current road infrastructure will not cope (which will not only affect Coddington – Newark will also be affected by yet more traffic congestion) but in terms of noise, poor air quality as a result of dust, and destruction of the immediate surrounding rural environment.

1 CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove the Coddington site from the mineral plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Office use only Person No: 3303 Rep Nos: Part A – Personal details 29824

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Ms First name Liz Last name Laine Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Signature Date 29th March 2016 Name Liz Laine If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3303 Rep No: 29824 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy x Site code Map/Plan x Paragraph Other

The predictions have been based upon sales figures from 2002-2011, whereas the Local Aggregates Assessment for the period 2004-2013 is more up to date and relevant. These figures show clearly that long term demand is falling, and that production from Flash Farm will be totally surplus to requirements as unused quantities from current sites or those in reserve will still be available.

Furthermore, no account has been taken of recycling and infill. It is understood the proposed developer is looking to bring in infill waste which will further increase the volume of heavy traffic through the village adding to noise and air pollution. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

The document should have incorporated - 2015 traffic information - up-to-date data on demand for aggregates - consideration of the full lifecycle impact on local residents, including the bringing in of infill waste wihich will further increase traffic, and related noise and air pollution.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes x No If Yes, please give details In 2014, I wrote with my concerns about the proposal’s impact on traffic volumes, increased noise and air pollution, and the impact on local villages.

Signature Date 29th March 2016 Name Liz Laine If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 16 March 2016 10:23 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29204

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Tim Harrison,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29204 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP5 Justification Support/Object: Object

The A617 is inadequate for the current volume of traffic and therefore not suitable to carry the added traffic of a quarry at Averham.

• The proposed annual extraction of 200,000 tonnes will generate at least 1,000 x 20 tonne lorry journeys per annum. The proposed backfill of a similar amount will generate at least this number and probably more depending on vehicle size • Traffic follows on the A617 on the Kelham Loop North East of Averham are in excess of 85,000 vehicles a week already, 15% of which are heavy goods (12,750) • Kelham Bridge has inadequate width to allow two lorries to pass at once in opposite directions • If the company decides that Kelham Bridge is an impediment to its transport operations more traffic will travel west towards the A614 via Hockerton and Kirklington • Noise levels and pollution caused by current traffic densities exceed Control of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and World Health Organisation (WHO) standards in both Kirklington and Hockerton • Many of the properties backing up to the side of the A617 through Averham and Hockerton and Kirklington are already affected by vibration from lorries • The entrance to Newark on the A617, A616 and A46 is regularly gridlocked. No reference has been made to the effect a new superstore at the Cattle Market roundabout and increased volume at Newark Castle Station. This, coupled with increased HGV traffic from new warehouses and a gravel quarry, would have one th frequently gridlocked road network.

1 hazardous, especially on bends. Kirklington has a school at its centre; the entrance is totally blind to traffic from Newark. The hill to the east of Kirklington is a hazard both up and down. There is a blind bend and junction at the bottom (where vehicles have left the road) and a blind bend at the top. Lorry breakdowns block traffic and usually entail the vehicle reversing downhill towards the blind bend. This problem increases in bad weather when lorries lose grip. This potentially lethal situation will only worsen with more traffic. Frequent lorry crashes, particularly around the Bilsthorpe and Belle Eau junctions, block the A617 and cause damage to ditches and field boundaries. Road surfaces are broken up by HGV traffic and defy repair leading to damaging and potentially potholes on all bends west of Kirklington.

SUMMARY

Road congestion and pollution were ignored in the draft plan, particularly with reference to Flash Farm. Environmental consideration would suggest that mineral extraction takes place where good transport links are available. This section of the Plan makes no reference to the current situation regarding highway safety on the A617 between Newark and Lockwell Hill. It is impossible to assess impact if a baseline is not established. Increased heavy lorry traffic will exacerbate current hazards

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Averham Flash Farm from the Plan based on unsuitability of the road network.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 16 March 2016 10:30 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29206

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Tim Harrison,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29206 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM9 Justification Support/Object: Object

The A617 is a dangerous road where drivers are likely to take risks, especially when HGVs cause tailbacks. In Kelham, Hockerton and Kirklington, house entrances and side roads, many on blind bends and crests, are made dangerous to residents and other road users by the large volume of traffic now. Pavements are narrow, and hazardous, especially on bends. Kirklington has a school at its centre; the entrance is totally blind to traffic from Newark. The hill to the east of Kirklington is a hazard both up and down. There is a blind bend and junction at the bottom (where vehicles have left the road) and a blind bend at the top. Lorry breakdowns block traffic and usually entail the vehicle reversing downhill towards the blind bend. This problem increases in bad weather when lorries lose grip. This potentially lethal situation will only worsen with more traffic. Frequent lorry crashes, particularly around the Bilsthorpe and Belle Eau junctions, block the A617 and cause damage to ditches and field boundaries. Road surfaces are broken up by HGV traffic and defy repair leading to damaging and potentially potholes on all bends west of Kirklington.

The A617 is inadequate for the current volume of traffic and therefore not suitable to carry the added traffic of a quarry at Averham.

The proposed annual extraction of 200,000 tonnes will generate at least 1,000 x 20 tonne lorry journeys per annum. The proposed backfill of a similar amount will generate at least this number and probably more depending on vehicle size Traffic follows on the A617 on the Kelham Loop North East of Averham are in excess of 85,000 vehicles a week already, 15% of which are heavy goods (12,750) Kelham Bridge has inadequate width to allow two lorries to pass at once in opposite directions If the company decides that Kelham Bridge is an impediment to its transport operations more traffic will travel west towards the A614 via Hockerton and Kirklington Noise levels and pollution caused by current traffic densities exceed Control of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and World Health Organisation (WHO) standards in both Kirklington and Hockerton Many

1 of the properties backing up to the side of the A617 through Averham and Hockerton and Kirklington are already affected by vibration from lorries The entrance to Newark on the A617, A616 and A46 is regularly gridlocked. No reference has been made to the effect a new superstore at the Cattle Market roundabout and increased volume at Newark Castle Station. This, coupled with increased HGV traffic from new warehouses and a gravel quarry, would have on the frequently gridlocked road network.

SUMMARY

This section of the Plan makes no reference to the current situation regarding highway safety on the A617 between Newark and Lockwell Hill. It is impossible to assess impact if a baseline is not established. Increased heavy lorry traffic will exacerbate current hazards Road congestion and pollution were ignored in the draft plan, particularly with reference to Flash Farm. Environmental consideration would suggest that mineral extraction takes place where good transport links are available.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Averham Flash Farm from the Plan on the grounds that the road network is unsafe and inadequate

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 16 March 2016 10:40 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29207

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Tim Harrison,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29207 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM1 Justification Support/Object: Object

DM1 states that existing development should not contribute to, or be put at risk from, pollution or other sources of nuisance or intrusion whichd coul adversely affect local amenity, particularly in relation to sensitive receptors.

Noise levels and pollution caused by current traffic densities exceed Control of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and World Health Organisation (WHO) standards in both Kirklington and Hockerton

Many of the properties backing up to the side of the A617 through Averham and Hockerton and Kirklington are already affected by vibration from lorries In Kelham, Hockerton and Kirklington, house entrances and side roads, many on blind bends and crests, are made dangerous to residents and other road users by the large volume of traffic now. Pavements are narrow, and hazardous, especially on bends. Kirklington has a school at its centre; the entrance is totally blind to traffic from Newark.

SUMMARY

Noise levels and pollution caused by current traffic densities exceed Control of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and World Health Organisation (WHO) standards in both Kirklington and Hockerton. Properties backing up to the side of the A617 through Averham and Hockerton and Kirklington are already affected by vibration from lorries. House entrances and side roads, many on blind bends and crests, are made dangerous to residents and other road users by the large volume of traffic now. Pavements are narrow, and hazardous, especially on bends. Kirklington has a school at its centre; the entrance is totally blind to traffic from Newark.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Averham Flash Farm from the Plan on the grounds that additional associated traffic will contribute to, or be put at risk from, pollution or other sources of nuisance or intrusion which could adversely affect local amenity, particularly in relation to sensitive receptors.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

1 How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 16 March 2016 10:52 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29208

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Tim Harrison,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29208 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM12 Justification Support/Object: Object

The Plan does not include satisfactory evidence that the waste will be available over an appropriate timescale in the types and quantities assumed, provide the optimum restoration solution or and provide evidence that it is not practical to re‐use or recycle the waste. The Averham Flash Farm proposal is to replace the void created by the extraction of 200,000 tonnes of sand and gravel per annum with inert waste, which equates to some 86.9% of the county inert waste production going to this one site, based upon 2010 figures adopted in NCC’s Waste Core Strategy. Nottinghamshire County Council’s Waste Core Strategy states, “Disposal of inert construction and demolition waste has fallen dramatically over the last 10 years from more than 500,000 tonnes a year to around 230,000 tonnes in 2010. Typically this waste is used to restore old mineral voids or similar sites although some is also used as daily cover and engineering material at non‐hazardous landfill sites.” There has been a complete change in culture as far as developers are concerned, e.g. •They frequently recycle and re‐use old concrete on site (e.g. for base aggregates on roads and footpaths) rather than sourcing new aggregate •It is cheaper and more convenient for them to use recycled material •Developer recycling is not measured by the County Council within its recycling rates, which already show a steady increase •Landfill Tax is currently running at £82.60 per tonne and increasing to £84.40 per tonne from April 2016, so the incentives for developers to recycle rather than dispose of existing aggregate is only going to increase, and the decrease in demand for newly quarried aggregate will continue. Given the dramatic fall in inert waste volumes, where will the amounts needed come from? If from beyond Nottinghamshire, how will it get to Averham? Increased HGV traffic will cause problems on roads beyond the immediate area.

SUMMARY

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Averham Flash Farm from the Plan on the grounds that site restoration with inert waste is not feasible in the timescales allowed.

The document is unsound because it is not:

1 i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 16 March 2016 11:06 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29209

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Tim Harrison,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29209 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP6 Justification Support/Object: Object

Sections 3.74 and 3.76 do not take account of the impact congestion, road safety, noise, dust, and vehicle emissions in surrounding communities especially the villages on the A617 between Newark and Lockwell Hill. Noise levels and pollution caused by current traffic densities exceed Control of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and World Health Organisation (WHO) standards in both Kirklington and Hockerton The proposed annual extraction of 200,000 tonnes will generate at least 1,000 x 20 tonne lorry journeys per annum. The proposed backfill of a similar amount will generate at least this number and probably more depending on vehicle size Traffic follows on the A617 on the Kelham Loop North East of Averham are in excess of 85,000 vehicles a week already, 15% of which are heavy goods (12,750) Kelham Bridge has inadequate width to allow two lorries to pass at once in opposite directions If the company decides that Kelham Bridge is an impediment to its transport operations more traffic will travel west towards the A614 via Hockerton and Kirklington Many of the properties backing eup to th side of the A617 through Averham and Hockerton and Kirklington are already affected by vibration from lorries The entrance to Newark on the A617, A616 and A46 is regularly gridlocked. No reference has been made to the effect a new superstore at the Cattle Market roundabout and increased volume at Newark Castle Station. This, coupled with increased HGV traffic from new warehouses and a gravel quarry, would have on the frequently gridlocked road network. The A617 is a dangerous road where drivers are likely to take risks, especially when HGVs cause tailbacks. In Kelham, Hockerton and Kirklington, house entrances and side roads, many on blind bends and crests, are made dangerous to residents and other road users by the large volume of traffic now. Pavements are narrow, and hazardous, especially on bends. Kirklington has a school at its centre; the entrance is totally blind to traffic from Newark. The hill to the east of Kirklington is a hazard both up and down. There is a blind bend and junction at the bottom (where vehicles have left the road) and a blind bend at the top. Lorry breakdowns block traffic and usually entail the vehicle reversing downhill towards the blind bend. This problem increases in bad weather when lorries lose grip. This potentially lethal situation will only worsen with more traffic. Frequent lorry crashes, particularly around the Bilsthorpe and Belle Eau junctions, block the A617 and cause damage to ditches and field boundaries. Road surfaces are broken up by HGV traffic and defy repair leading to damaging and potentially potholes on all bends west of Kirklington.

SUMMARY

1 Noise levels and pollution caused by current traffic densities exceed CRTN and WHO standards in both Kirklington and Hockerton Traffic follows on the A617 on the Kelham Loop North East of Averham exceed 85,000 vehicles a week already, 15% are HGVs. No reference has been made to the effect a new superstore at the Cattle Market roundabout and increased volume at Newark Castle Station.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Averham Flash Farm from the Plan on the grounds that the development will cause significant residual impact to health and congestion in the surrounding communities.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 From: Richard Horne CBOA Sent: 21 March 2016 18:43 To: Development Planning Cc: Subject: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan – Submission Draft Formal Consultation - CBOA response

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Mr. Osborne-James,

The Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA) represents operators of freight carrying vessels in the UK's inland and estuarial waterways and is accepted by the Government as the representative industry body.

Thank for your email of the 12th February notifying CBOA of the consultation for the above.

On behalf of CBOA, I would like to comment that CBOA is in agreement with the soundness and structural integrity of the proposed Draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan.

We also very much commend the stated proposed use of barge transport for sites at Shelford and Besthorpe for shipment of as much aggregate as possible, and for transporting equipment to site. This is in line with reducing the carbon footprint and reduction of road use by HGV traffic.

If we can be of any more assistance please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Horne. Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA)

http://www.cboa.org.uk/

The CBOA is the prime trade organization involved in sustaining and promoting freight carriage on our waterways for economic and environmental reasons.

PLEASE NOTE: This Email and any attachments are subject to contract and confidential. CBOA does not accept any liability, including liability for negligence, for statements and representations (excluding fraudulent misrepresentations) made in it or for any viruses it may contain nor endorses any opinions or other information contained in it that are personal. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read, copy or publish it and should destroy it; and email back to us or telephone us to let us know. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are free from any virus, we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure the messages are virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks, which may not be a 100% secure communications medium, and CBOA cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

1 Office use only Person No: 3321

Rep Nos: 29616 Part A – Personal details

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mrs First name Diane Last name Harrison Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Signature Date 22.3.2016 Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3321 Rep No: 29616 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy MP2 Site code Map/Plan Paragraph 4.15 Other

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No X If Yes, please give details

Signature Date 22.3.2016 Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Office use only Person No: 3322

Rep Nos: 29708 Part A – Personal details

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Miss First name Charlotte Last name Harrison Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Signature Date 24.03..2016 Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: 3322 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29708 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy MP2 Site code Map/Plan Paragraph 4.15 Other

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No X If Yes, please give details

Signature Date 24.3.2016 Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature

Office use only Person No: 3323 Rep Nos: 29617 Part A – Personal details

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Professor First name Michael Last name Bassey Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination The publication of the recommendations of the inspector The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

Signature Date Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: 3323 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29617 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy Site code Mp2o Map/Plan Paragraph Other

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with (2) Justified? x (3) Effective? prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

The following extracts from the document demonstrate that the legitimate concerns of local residents have been mentioned but have not resulted in removal of this area from the plan:

Section 4 Quality of historic environment

“The setting of Coddington conservation area could be affected.”

Section 5 Quality and character of landscape

“The landscape action categorisation is ‘Conserve and Create’. The impact is therefore likely to be negative during the operational phase, lessening slightly in the long-term, as conserving the existing distinctive landscape features and those in good condition is unlikely to be compatible with minerals extraction”

Section 11 Protect and improve local air quality

“Operations would create dust”

Section 13 Support wider economic development

“The site is in close proximity to Coddington so during the operational phase there could be an adverse effect resulting from “

Section 14 Protect and improve human health and quality of life

“Environmental protection measures to reduce noise and dust. Transport Assessment.”

SUMMARY

“noise, dust and traffic”

“The site scores very negatively with regard to impact”

“Landscape would be affected negatively as it is in moderate condition with moderate sensitivity,” “surrounding settlements could be negatively affected by noise, dust and traffic”

Will the policy have an impact on social, economic and environmental living conditions that would indirectly affect health?

Yes - There will be an amenity impact on upwards of a thousand local residents living close to the mineral site,

§ Anxiety

§ Noise pollution

§ Air pollution

§ Temporary loss of access to open space

§ Long term provision of access to open space

§ Increased road traffic and safety issues

5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

This site should be abandoned for the reasons set out above.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes x No If Yes, please give details I was one of 745 people of Coddington who signed a petition to the County Council opposing this quarry on grounds of traffic hazards on the inadequate roads round Newark, the risks to health of local residents, and the threat to Stapleford Woods.

Signature Date 22 March 2016 Name Michael Bassey If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature 3323

29617

From: Michael Bassey Sent: 26 March 2016 15:16 To: Development Planning Subject: Quarry proposal at Cpddington MP2o

Dear Development Planning Team

With regard to the quarry proposal at Coddington (MP2o) i would like to add to my submission of 22 March a concern ("unsound") that if the gravel extraction goes ahead the aftermath will be a large lake and not a return to the existing agricultural land. This is not acceptable since it will radically alter the local environment.

Yours sincerely

Michael Bassey

1 3323 29970 Office use only Person No: 3326 Part A – Personal details Rep Nos: 29784

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mr First name Robert Last name Parkes Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group: Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination Y The publication of the recommendations of the inspector Y The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan Y If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

Signature Date 29th March 2016 Name Robert Parkes If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3326 Rep No: 29784 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy X Site code Map/Plan X Paragraph Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes No Sound? Yes No X If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with (2) Justified? X (3) Effective? X prepared? X national policy? X You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

1. Need for the development of this site is not established - data has evolved and been updated to indicate production from this site would be surplus to requirements ( most up-to-date local aggregates assessment 2. Would negatively impact the local communities through the increased volume of heavy traffic on the A617 - local data collection ,via validated traffic montioring, has already indicated both unacceptably high levels of traffic volume and high levels of speeding traffic. This already increases issues regarding resident safety, pollution and noise for the affected villages and towns. 3. I understand that the developer is looking to bring in in-fill waste - this further increases traffic, brings into question the nature of the in-fill material and further, negatively, affects the ecological impact and carbon footprint. 4. It should be remembered that this was, originally, an 11th hour submission that was made giving local communities the minimum amount of time to organise any form of response. 5. None of this is about the welfare of local communities. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Please note: You should provide as much information/justification in your representation as you feel necessary and appropriate because once you have submitted your representation there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to submit anything else unless requested to do so by the planning inspector. Every, and all, up-to-date information should be used to establish the need for, and validity, of this development - the Flash Farm development is neither needed nor wanted. The views, needs and safety of the local communities should be a paramount factor in the decision making bodies decision. The are alternative sites that would incur less negative effect on the local communities, less dangerous impact on the traffic routes. This proposal should be rejected

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes Y No If Yes, please give details A written submission, in 2014, during the initial stages of this process

Signature Date 29th March 2016 Name Robert Parkes If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 19:55 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29421

Tony Warwick,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29421 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP5: Sustainable Transport Support/Object: Object

Road congestion and pollution were ignored in the draft plan. Flash farm is environmentally unsuitable because of poor transport links.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Flash farm not to be included because of poor transport links.

The document is unsound because it is not: iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

This email is acknowledgement of the receipt of your representation. TIt is NO confirmation that the representation has yet been registered. You will not receive any further notification by email that your representation has been registered until the end of the participation period.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 20:01 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29422

Tony Warwick,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29422 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2: Sand and gravel provision, MP2p Flash Farm Support/Object: Object

The plan would greatly increase road haulage. This would have a disastrous effect on Kirklington. The projected figures provided for the amount of gravel needed by the county are based on outdated usage and therefore significantly overestimated. Demand for virgin gravel has dropped in recent yers because of the cost. developers are increasingly using recycled materials.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash farm from plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 19:57 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29425

Tony Warwick,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29425 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM1 Justification Support/Object: Object

The noise levels and pollution (especially diesel emissions) caused by the current traffic densities are already too high in both Kirklington and Hockerton. Respiratory problems and asthma is already high in this area.

Pavements in villages are narrow and hazardous especially on bends. The entrance to the Wings school is totally blind. Other houses have entrances on blind bends and crests. Road surfaces are broken up by the HGV traffic. Repairs are inadequate. Pot holes are potentially damaging to vehicles and present a danger.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash farm from plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 19:59 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29468

Tony Warwick,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29468 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM12 Justification Support/Object: Object

The plan does not contain satisfactory evidence that the waste will be available in the types and quantities assumed, over an appropriate timescale or eprovide th optimum restoration solution or provide evidence that it is not practical to re‐use or recycle the waste. increased recycling (which should be encouraged) together with the increasing landfill taxes have reduced the inert waste available in the County. To achieve the proposed tonnages, the site would have to import more than is available County wide.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash farm from plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 20:03 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29469

Tony Warwick,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29469 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2p ‐ Flash Farm Support/Object: Object

Flash Farm should not be considered. This site is actively farmed and should not be lost to food or bio‐fuel production. It forms part of the characteristic landscape of the area. out of date data has been used which is therefore inaccurate and misleading. The A617 is already heavily used by HGVs. It runs through 3 rural villages which would be even more negatively impacted. Road traffic noise in Kirklington and Hockerton hasn already bee measured by Newark & Sherwood District officers and found to be in excess of the CRTN and WHO standards.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash farm from plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 19:55 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29470

Tony Warwick,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29470 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM8 Justification Support/Object: Object

The A617 is busy and dangerous. Hence the reduced speed limit, sadly often flouted. Already there are large numbers of HGVs passing through Kirklington. Noise pollution and air pollution ‐ including diesel particulates which are particularly dangerous to children. It is the ambulance route for Kings Mill. The more traffic, the slower the response times for emergency call outs. There are lots of accidents that interrupt traffic flow. There have been other changes which have added to the density of traffic on the A617 and there are more to come.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove flash Farm site from plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 20:10 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29329

Mr Terence Whitburn,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29329 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

The sand & gravel resources of sheet SK85 of the Newark area, shows from bore holes NW 59 & 60 that the deepest gravel deposits are in the South West of the proposed site , Putting the greatest amount of extraction nearest to the Coddington village. Measured on Ordinance Survey sheet No. 121 1:50 000 Puts the excavations approximately 250‐300 meters from the nearest private housing very close to the recommended legal distance. A more accurate measurement could well cast some doubt about this. The shallowing of the Gravel layers to the North & West Bore Holes NW 57 & 58 to on average 2 meters. Must make the estimated reserve some what dubious?? The extraction would leave a pit around 12 meters deep is this to be left as a lake or infilled with no toxic material of some dubious source ?? the effect on the water table of pollution would be disastrous for Stapleford Wood which is down slope to the Quarry site. Should the Pit need dewatering where would the water be drain to as pollution of the local water ways is not allowed. The increase in HGV traffic on the all ready over loaded A17 is cause for great concern and any blockage West of Drove Lane may cause the HGV traffic to be routed through Coddington Village. As well increasing the dust level on the A17. As well as the village in Northerly winds. Noise is also a problem , noise from events on the show ground can be heard quite loudly . devaluing of local environment as well as property.

SUMMARY

Noise, Dust from site and increased road traffic. Water table pollution, distance to local housing. the return of land to agriculture . devalue environment and property. depth of gravel in the North of site deep enough to be profitable ?

CHANGE TO PLAN

Do not allow this development.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 This email is acknowledgement of the receipt of your representation. It is NOT confirmation that the representation has yet been registered. You will not receive any further notification by email that your representation has been registered until the end of the participation period.

2 Office use only Person No: 3342 Rep Nos: Part A – Personal details 29716

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mr First name Alan Last name Phillips Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination yes The publication of the recommendations of the inspector yes The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan yes If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

Signature Date 27/03/2016 Name Alan Phillips If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: 3342 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29716 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy Site code Map/Plan Paragraph Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes No Sound? Yes No yes If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with (2) Justified? yes (3) Effective? prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION

The A1/A146/A17 junction is already a notorious bottle neck, and when an incident happens near it traffic chaos ensues in the general Newark / Coddington area. Local diversions are on narrow roads unsuitable for heavy traffic. Coddington has a weight limit through it so the A17 already takes all of the heavy traffic up to the A1/A46 junction The increased traffic will increase the level of emissions.

NOISE POLLUTION

The proposed site is an area with an open aspect which would allow noise pollution from the site to be transmitted to the Coddington area throughout the working day of the proposed quarry. On clear days noise can be heard in Coddington from Newark Northgate Station and also the Newark Showground which are further away than the proposed site.

DUST POLLUTION

With the proposed site being open aspect Coddington has no protection from airborne particulates being dispersed from the site. This would cause air pollution and the associated health problems. The drying of washing outside would be problematic and all vehicles left on the roads would be covered with dust.

WATER TABLE

The proposed quarrying would have an adverse effect on the water table all around and would the site be returned to prime agricultural land at the end of the projects.

I do not believe that the council has taken any of these concerns in to account making the general proposal unsound.

In general the proposed quarry would change the peaceful village of Coddington to no one would want to live in for the life time of the project, but would they be able sell and at what cost? 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No If Yes, please give details

Signature Date Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 03 March 2016 12:30 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29133

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Ms Sharon Bevan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29133 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

‐ The proposal would adversely affect the Staplewood woods natural environment, which is one of few extensive woodlands to the east of Sherwood that offers a local tranquil natural environment for the local community and has a natural trail. Often used by dog walkers, cyclists, families and horse riders. Prevailing wind will be across the woodland. Ground disturbance may lead to increased risk of tree falls and hence safety due to shallow rooted pine trees. ‐ Impact on bird and wild life. The woods offer a habitat for owls, wood peckers, mountjacks and hedgehogs in particular. ‐ We, and others, purchased our property in the Stapleford Wood area for the natural surroundings and tranquility offered. The value of our property would be adversely affected, given that much of the value is derived from the location rather than the property construction. ‐ The prevailing wind would mean substantially and consistently more dust, noise and dirt for the houses located in and around Stapleford Lane which would be located within 300 m of the proposed site. Concern for the resulting air quality in permanently occupied houses. New quarry locations should take into account what lies in the path of the prevailing wind from the quarry. ‐ Concern that, given the existence of a quarry to the north of the woods, this will lead to further future expansion and further degradation of the local environment and further impact on house prices and ability to sell. ‐ Increased risk of flood to properties in Stapleford Lane. ‐ Impact on local road networks already struggling to cope at peak times with increased traffic from other recent local industrial expansion. ‐ Seriously undermines character of the area.

SUMMARY

‐ Adverse impact to natural and expansive woodland extensively used by the public; prevailing wind will increase noise and dust pollution. Impact on wildlife. ‐ Adverse and enduring impact on Stapleford Lane house prices and ability to sell. ‐ Adverse impact to air quality/ noise for these properties due to prevailing wind from quarry. Location/tranquillity are key selling assets for these properties. ‐ Risk of flood to 12+ properties in Stapleford Lane. ‐ Risk of tree falls and hence safety impact due to ground disturbance. ‐ Impact on local, already busy, road networks. ‐ Seriously undermines character of area.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Omit Coddington Drove Lane location from the Minerals Plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 10:52 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29440

Mr Mark Ross,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29440 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

The proposed Coddington quarry would cause complete traffic chaos and gridlock in the Newark/Coddington/Winthorpe area. The area already suffers from very heavy traffic due to the convergence of A1/A17/A46. There is already a high volume of lorry traffic, particularly on the A17 with produce being transported from South Lincs and Norfolk. Also the A17 is the major route to the Norfolk coast and has heavy caravan trafiic during holiday periods. Events at Newark Showground currently cause severe congestion, this affect A17 and A46, it causes problems for people from Winthorpe village trying to travel into Newark and impacts back onto the A1 slip road, causing quequing on the A1 itself which is very dangerous. Newark Air Museum has been granted Lottery funding for improvement/expansion, this will mean an increase in visitors and more cars wanting access to the area. Congestion could put people off from using the museum, of at the very least put them off from returning in future. As road users try to avoid the inevitable congestion they will look for alternate routes,l this wil impact on Beckingham Road and Drove Lane in Coddington, in particular turnign Drove Lane into a "rat run". This will reduce the quality of village life. Also it could endanger children at the village school. All of the above issues feed into the grdlock issues in Newark town centre which currntly exist on a daily basis

SUMMARY

My objection is based on the impact of increased lorry traffic that the proposed quarry would cause. both on the immediate area and the knock on affect to Newark town centre and major roads A1/A46/A17

CHANGE TO PLAN

The propose quarry on the Coddington site is totally unsuitable for the above reasons

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 12:59 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29449

Miss Sarah Blount,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29449 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

The proposed Coddington quarry would cause complete traffic chaos and gridlock in the Newark area. The area suffers from very heavy traffic, particularly with the already high volume of lorry traffic. The A17 is also the major route to the Norfolk coast and has heavy caravan traffic during holiday periods. Events at Newark Showground currently cause severe congestion, particularly at the A46 roundabout which has a knock on effect for the village of Winthorpe and causes traffic to back up on to the A1 slip road, which is very dangerous. Newark Air Museum has been granted Lottery funding for improvement/expansion. This will result in an increase in visitors and more cars wanting access to the area. This congestion could put people off from using the museum and therefore have an effect on the tourist industry for Newark. As road users try to avoid the inevitable congestion they will look for alternate routes. This will impact on Beckingham Road and Drove Lane in Coddington and will reduce the quality of village life. Also it could endanger children at the village school. All of the above issues feed into the gridlock issues in Newark town centre which currently exist on a daily basis. The building of a quarry will also cause air pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding countryside and local woods.

SUMMARY

My objection is based on the increase in traffic and the effect on the surrounding environment in the Newark area and the resulting impact this will have on village life in Coddington.

CHANGE TO PLAN

I object wholeheartedly to the building of a quarry so close to a village and the surrounding countryside.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

This email is acknowledgement of the receipt of your representation. It is NOT confirmation that the representation has yet been registered. tYou will no receive any further notification by email that your representation has been registered until the end of the participation period.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 26 March 2016 14:56 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29414

Mr. Christopher Parrett,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29414 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2: Sand and gravel provision, MP2o Coddington Support/Object: Object

I feel that Nottinghamshire CC has over estimated the provision of needs and Coddington would be in excess to requirements.

Lincolnshire which borders this site has had to reassess their needs, likewise for Coddington

CHANGE TO PLAN

Coddington to be taken out of this plan due to overestimation of requirements

The document is unsound because it is not: iii. Effective

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 26 March 2016 15:14 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29416

Mr. Christopher Parrett,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29416 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM10 Justification Support/Object: Object

The road network cannot sustain any new developments that add to the already very congested traffic, not just near Coddington (A17) but the whole of Newark area, the notorious A17/A46/A1 roundabouts and roads are among the 3 worst in the country, This making Newark a 'no go' town, ruining businesses and the lives of local people and the plan has not looked fully at these implications. Added to this we now have 24 extra trains using the Castle Station and causing more road blockages

CHANGE TO PLAN

Coddington must be taken out of this plan until the road networks have been greatly improved because it is the only major crossing for the River Trent and the main route to the North for traffic using the A1 (North and South) and A46 (West to East) this route seen a very large increase since it was duelled, all making Newark the 'Bottle Neck' of the east midlands

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 26 March 2016 15:25 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29417

Mr. Christopher Parrett,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29417 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM12 Justification Support/Object: Object

If this plan is included, when completed l feel strongly that it should be restored to it's original state as agricultural use. The character of Coddington village is of crops, animals and green fields and this should be maintained.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Specify that it is to be restored to it original state.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 3476 29904 3476 29904

3485 30017

From: Howard Heeley < Sent: 22 March 2016 12:43 To: Development Planning Cc: Subject: Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Newark Air Museum trustees would like to make some additional comments about the Coddington / A17 Gravel Quarry proposal. I have tried to do this via our online account, but I cannot find a way to do this. So please accept the following additional submission:

Objection The air museum is still concerned about additional HGV road movements to and from the proposed site. As previously advised the A17 road already has a poor safely record in this area and the quarry would only increase those risks / safety issues.

Recommendation The museum trustees still believe that the additional HGV road movements, mixed with event traffic on the Newark Showground site will be highly detrimental. We would like the following observation / suggestion added into to consultation process.

At present local traffic flow plans to cope with vehicles leavings events on the Showground direct vehicles to make a left turn out of Drove Lane onto the A17 bypass road east bound towards Sleaford. Vehicles are then turned back on themselves westbound towards Newark and the A1 at the Stapleford Lane roundabout, where the old A17 road joins the A17 bypass. To minimise the risk of accidents vehicles are not allowed to turn right out of Drove Lane towards Newark. Such traffic flows would bring vehicles towards the proposed quarry site, thereby increasing the dangers.

The museum understands that when the Dixon Mastercare site was built there was a proposed access road into the Showground site at the western end of their site. Indeed you can see an uncompleted exit on the Dixon Mastercare roundabout on the A17 bypass road. To try and mitigate future traffic problems, the museum trustees respectfully suggest that this access road onto the Showground should be instigated as part of any planning permission that is granted to the gravel extraction proposal. By doing this future traffic flows would be moved a short distance away from the proposed quarry location.

Regards,

Howard Heeley Secretary & Museum Trustee Newark Air Museum Registered Charity No. 256434 Accredited Museum No. AN551 Web: www.newarkairmuseum.org Twitter: @NewarkAirMus

RAF Winthorpe book on sale now! Vulcan Story – 2 April, 2016 Tribute to the V‐Force – 21 & 22 May, 2016

1 Cockpit‐Fest & Aeroboot – 18 & 19 June, 2016 www.newarkairmuseum.org

You can make online donations for Project Panini (Mod) via https://www.justgiving.com/Howard‐Heeley2

OR text PANI91 and the amount to 70070

This email is from Newark [Notts & Lincs] Air Museum Ltd, Drove Lane, Winthorpe, Newark, Notts, NG24 2NY – Telephone – 01636 707170; registered in England and Wales. Company number 930888

2 3489 29977 3490 29861 3490 29861

3490 29991

Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 17 March 2016 15:22 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29244

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Mr Ray Edwards,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29244 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM9: Highways safety and vehicle movements/routeing Support/Object: Object

I do not believe that the strategic traffic assessment with regard to the proposed site at Coddington is sound. I see no reflection of the existing, very real and at times severe, traffic problems which will clearly be accentuated by any of the proposed quarry development. The A17 in particular is a busy and dangerous route and to my personal knowledge there have been two fatalities at the A17/Drove lane junction.

CHANGE TO PLAN

There is one simple solution ‐ that is ‐ not to accept the Coddington site for gravel extraction.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 27 March 2016 15:07 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29435

Mr John Barker,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29435 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

I believe the MP for Coddington is unsound on the basis the plan does not recognise the existing volume of traffic that uses the route through Coddington to avoid the already acknowledged bottleneck at the A1,A6,A17 junctions. During weekday non peak times vehicles (including HGV's) already pass through the village at one vehicle every 8 seconds on average. With the predicted huge numbers of HGV movements to and from the mineral site each day this will inevitably cause greater gridlock at the A1,A46,17 junctions and subsequently increase the traffic through Coddington with even greater risks to the local residents and school children and with higher pollution levels.

SUMMARY

I believe the plan is unsound as "The Strategic Traffic Assessment" included in the documents is now comprehensive and takes no account of peak/seasonal traffic, or impact of such on increase of HGV journeys when the quarry becomes operational. Neither are there any projections or considerations in the event of accidents/road works leaving local residents in fear of their safety.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Reject the proposed MP site for Coddington!

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 3533 29438

From: Geoff Smith > Sent: 22 March 2016 12:58 To: Development Planning Subject: Notts. Minerals Local Plan: Flash Farm Averham, Mineral Extraction Proposals

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Sir,

I wish to OBJECT to the proposals for the above for the following reasons, the bulk of which refer to the unsuitability of the A617 in my our own locality between Lockwell Hill and Newark -passing through the very small villages of Kirklington, Hockerton and Kelham:

1. The A617 road is wholly unfit to carry any more traffic, particularly HGVs. The A617 is narrow, has dangerous bends and hidden dips, and the bridge at Kelham is in poor condition and is too narrow to allow HGVs to pass.

2. The A617 passes through a number of villages such as Kirklington, Hockerton and Kelham. In such villages where there are pavements the pavement is so narrow as to make it already dangerous for pedestrians (including children and pets!) to walk with any safety. When walking when HGVs are passing (almost 100% of the time between 4am to 8pm and beyond) they are so close as to be seriously at risk of persons and pets being blown over. Outside the villages there are few or no pavements making it both difficult and dangerous when walking, or cycling, on the main carriageway. For example I HAVE to walk to a Post Box and there is no alternative but to walk in the road. The huge volume of the vehicles, and their drivers, seem to feel that they have a God given right to "blow" pedestrians off the road.

3. The A617 road condition is poor in the extreme and the HGVs create such vibration as to cause physical damage to the property. In this particular matter I would evidence the physical damage caused by much lesser loads than would be the case when any additional loads are put on the road by pointing out that Notts County Council (and/or their Insurers) have already been required to accept responsibility to rectify damage caused by vibration. From within our house (a good way from the road) we can hear and feel the vibration and noise of large HGV - particularly when climbing up Kirklington Hill. That slow climb also already causes long and dangerous tailbacks and driver frustration on the road. More Quarry would aggravate that situation enormously.

4. The A617 is already well overloaded with traffic, especially caused by the Rainworth and Mansfield bypasses and by the constant new industrial development at Belle Eau Park at Bilsthorpe. In this particular respect a huge new Warehouse/Cold Store nearing completion for the Yearsley Logistics Group will already add several hundred HGV movements per week and /or per day. Yet more quarry truck traffic would make life intolerable for residents and road users.

5. We live on a blind bend on the A617 and each time we leave my property in our car I and my family have to literally put lives at risk, even after waiting some 5- minutes or more for the opportunity to leave my property due to the continuous flow of traffic appearing either round the bend or suddenly appearing as they peak the top of Kirklington Hill. More quarry trucks will increase the risks.

6. You may consider it "nimbyism" but our enjoyment of our own property is now being destroyed by the constant noise and vibration caused by the volume and size of the HGVs. Our property is actually some 100 feet plus from the A617 road but it is impossible to even talk against the noise of the traffic outside the house. All this, of course is in addition to the whole area becoming blighted by the continuing increase in the number of wind turbines wherever you look. I believe that enjoyment of one's property and a decent quality of life will be even further ruined if more quarry trucks and the like are put on the roads in this area.

7. The A617 is already known as one of the most dangerous roads IN THE COUNTRY and further HGV traffic can only increase the risks and deaths on the road. Please see a website call CRASHMAP at: http://www.crashmap.co.uk/

1 which records every accident, injury and death on this road and all over the country. There are already more fatalities and injuries than one can readily count, particularly between Lockwell Hill and Newark without adding to them with additional and excessive HGV journeys.

8. Risk of death and injury would be seriously increased if a super abundance of additional HGVs carrying quarry products were added to the A617. There is a 50mph speed limit on this road but which is widely ignored anyway and rarely do the Police enforce same. They do "hide" at the Kirklington village entrance/exit but NEVER have I seen any check or enforcement of speed limits in the 50mph road between the villages. Adding yet more traffic to this road is wholly unreasonable and unacceptable.

9. It is also our understanding that the so-called estimates of future aggregate requirements (29m tonnes) are in error and that further extraction of minerals in the area would be unnecessary. This was stated at a Meeting earlier this month, and recorded in the local newspaper (Southwell Advertiser) as being some 9m tonnes (over 30% less!).

10. When we first moved in to our property over 30-years ago Kirklington and our property were peaceful areas and properties in pleasant countryside. That situation has been destroyed by ever increasing industrial estates and "cut throughs" between M1, A1 and A46. I consider it wholly unfair that further traffic and disturbance should be added to create any further loss of enjoyment.

11. When we purchased our property at the top of Kirklington Hill a bypass of Kirklington was already in consideration by the Notts County Council and plans and the route decided. Further I have on a number of occasions requested a footpath between our property and the nearest Post Box as it is dangerous/lethal having to walk in the main carriageway - especially at night and darkness in the winter months. These proposals and requests were denied by NCC on the grounds of having "no money". I submit that it is unfair, unreasonable, negligent and downright dangerous to now, 30-years later, increase risks, destroy enjoyment.

I would now be obliged if the foregoing objections, with reasons, can be formally submitted and recorded.

Thanking you in anticipation

Regards

G C Smith,

GEOFFREY C. SMITH, FRICS

This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information. In the event of any error in transmission, unauthorised recipients are requested to please contact the Sender immediately and not disclose or make use of this information

2 Office use only Person No: 3548 Part A – Personal details Rep Nos: 29804-29805

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mrs First name Yvette Last name Wellard Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group: Organisation Barnby in the Willows Parish Council Job title Parish Clerk

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Agreement of all 7 Parish Councillors

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination √ The publication of the recommendations of the inspector √ The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan √ If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

Signature Date 29 March 2016 Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3548 Rep No: 29804-29805 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy DM9 Site code MP2o Map/Plan Paragraph a, b, c Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes √ No Sound? Yes No √ If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with √ (2) Justified? √ (3) Effective? √ prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

Barnby in the Willows Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal for gravel extraction on the A17 Coddington site (MP2o). Although the site is over 2 miles away from Barnby village, the additional traffic that would be generated by the site would affect the whole of the Newark area, which is already struggling to cope with the volume of traffic. The single carriageway approach roads to the major intersection of the A46, A17 and A1 are inadequate for current levels of traffic, which, considering the growth points planned to the south of the town, and the general increase in traffic, will be even greater by 2023 when the gravel extraction would begin. Congestion in the town centre is a major problem and will be further aggravated by the increase in the number of trains coming through the town, the new District Council offices and the proposed sale of land for retail on the B6326 – all impacting on the A46/A617 roundabout.

There are no guarantees that funding will be available to dual the A46 around Newark, and even if work was to start, along with the Kelham by-pass, there would be major disruption during the period of proposed gravel extraction. Experience here has proved that improvements are never enough to cope with the traffic levels for a significant period of time, so gravel extraction over a 25 year period would still be a problem. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Please note: You should provide as much information/justification in your representation as you feel necessary appropriate because once you have submitted your representation there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to submit anything else unless requested to do so by the planning inspector.

We do not believe that the traffic assessments carried out for this application accurately reflect the problems that Newark experiences on a daily basis. There has to be a firm commitment to major improvements to the road network, and more over-all strategic planning of developments in and around the Newark area. However, a site that is so close to the town, the County Showground, and all the overstretched traffic intersections around Newark, would always create major transport problems, and alternative sites should be considered. A far more comprehensive traffic assessment, and long term planning for the whole area are essential before allowing even more slow-moving heavy lorries on to the single carriageways of the A17 and A46.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes √ No If Yes, please give details First Minerals Plan Consultation October 2013 Second Consultation, June 2014.

Signature Date 29 March 2016 Name If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature John Wilson

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 18 March 2016 15:29 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29260

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Sarah Webb,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29260 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2: Sand and gravel provision, MP2o Coddington Support/Object: Object

The proposed plan is not sound for the following reasons The impacts on local amenity and health of local people from the site are significant. the HIA written for the plan as a whole details the health impacts arising from increased noise dust and air pollution particularly from a large increase in HGV movements. However these impacts have not been taken account of at site level where they would actually occur. Almost every house in Coddington is within 1 mile of the proposed quarry. There is significant evidence of the serious effects of NOx and particulates from diesel engines on longterm health of communities exposed.

The council should be aiming to reduce the impacts of traffic and doing more to promote sustainable forms of transport and the re ‐use of building materials rather than quarries on greenfield sites. Any changes or improvements to the road network would not actually reduce the number of additional HGV movements [192 per working day] plus vehicle movements inside the site which are not quantified. The transport assessment is flawed in that it rates the Coddington site amber/medium for proposed duration whereas the plan makes it clear that the expected life would be 20 years making it a high impact/red site under the critieria given. The assessment also takes no account of the local problems of traffic using Coddington village as a 'rat run' during peak times and congested periods. This is already an issue and likely to be made much worse by the quarry adding to pollution and risk of accidents within the village. The County Council has duties under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to improve the health of its population. The impacts of noise, pollution and serious loss of amenity [described as temporary but likely to be in excess of 20 years] are significant in terms of the overall health of the community and seem to conflict with this duty.

SUMMARY

Significant impacts arising from noise dust and pollution affecting amenity and health are not adequately described nor taken into consideration for the Coddington site.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Coddington from the plan

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent

1 examination: Written representation.

2 John Wilson

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 22 March 2016 17:45 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29325

Philip Henson,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29325 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM8 Justification Support/Object: Object

I object to the Coddington mineral plan as I do not consider sufficient consideration has being applied to the effects of the quarry on the residents of Coddington. The village will be subjected to negative impacts arising from dust, noise, nuisance and increased traffic for an extended period of time. Under The European Court Human rights, a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of property without interference from a public authority. There are many people in the village who potentially will be particularly badly effected by the final planning decision, creating the possibility of legal cases under the ECHR. The village is not only home to large numbers of families with dependent children and elderly relatives, but also hosts a major road network. The economic benefits of A17/A1&/A46 network is huge, nationally and locally and as identified by Newark Council, currently under stress, without the additional burden of an extra 200 heavy lorries daily. The DPD cannot be legally compliant if there is a risk of claims under the ECHR. I accept that the national mineral plan is important to our national interests, however I do not consider the Coddington plan to be a credible solution as currently proposed. It is far too close to the village and the transportation infrastructure is not a viable proposal.

SUMMARY object on grounds of: 1. soundness ‐negative impacts on residents with regard to noise, dust and nuisance. ‐Increased traffic burden for an extended period of time (20 years). ‐Road infrastructure A17/A1/A46 under stress from current volumes as identified by Newark Council. 2. object on grounds of:Legality‐claims risk ‐Under ECHR people particularly badly effected by planning decisions mmay clai for damages. ‐Coddington primary school with 400+ cohort and many residents with young and elderly dependents within 1/2 mile of site.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Coddington removed from the DPD.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 John Wilson

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 09:31 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29330

Philip Henson,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29330 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

SUMMARY object on grounds of: 1. soundness ‐negative impacts on residents with regard to noise, dust and nuisance. ‐Increased traffic burden for an extended period of time (20 years). ‐Road infrastructure A17/A1/A46 under stress from current volumes as identified by Newark Council. 2. object on grounds of:Legality‐claims risk ‐Under ECHR people particularly badly effected by planning decisions may claim for damages. ‐Coddington primary school with 400+ cohort and many residents with young and elderly dependents within 1/2 mile of site.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Coddington to be removed from DPD until a thorough risk assessment has being undertaken to establish if and how the residents will be affected, and how negative impacts can be reduced to an acceptable level.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared iii. Effective

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 03 March 2016 14:20 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29134

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Chris Hall,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29134 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2p ‐ Flash Farm Support/Object: Object

Whilst we appreciate that mineral extraction is needed, in the UK, as local residents to the proposed site at Flash Farm we have serious concerns about the potential impact on the immediate surrounding environment. The main areas of concern are increased HGV traffic on the already, well publicized, overloaded road network in particularly the A617, Kelham bridge, A46/A1 junctions, together with the inevitable noise/air pollution and initial disruption to wildlife whilst extraction is carried out. We already encounter numerous long delays and diversions throughout the year trying to access our nearest Service Center (Newark) and without major infrastructure investment this can only get worse with the introduction of more HGV's and regular site traffic. There is an inevitable noise and air pollution issue and as there are no buildings are natural barriers between our property and the proposed site location this could result in significant detrimental social and health issues and also dramatically affect local property values. We would strongly request that these local community issues are considered to outweigh any financial benefit to NCC, the land owners and site operators and that this site is rejected.

SUMMARY

There are serious concerns about the potential impact on the immediate surrounding environment. The main areas of concern are increased HGV traffic on the already, well publicized, overloaded road network in particularly the A617, Kelham bridge, A46/A1 junctions, together with the inevitable noise/air pollution and initial disruption to wildlife whilst extraction is carried out. We would strongly request that these local community issues are considered to outweigh any financial benefit to NCC, the land owners and site operators and that this site is rejected.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Site to be rejected outright in favor of a more suitable site offering considerably less impact on neighboring communities, environment and infrastructure.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Office use only Person No: 3612 Rep Nos: Part A – Personal details 29763-29768

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mr First name Craig Last name Black Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination The publication of the recommendations of the inspector X The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan X If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

Signature Date 26/03/2016 Name Craig Black If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: 3612 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29763 and 29768 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy MP1 Site code MP2p Map/Plan Paragraph Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes No X Sound? Yes No X If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with X (2) Justified? X (3) Effective? X prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

The quantities argument is flawed and out of date. Planning guidelines dictate that the most up to date data should be used to forecast future demand. NCC is using 2011 figures. It is documented that virgin mineral usage is down due to the decline in gravel demand and the impact of recycling tax and re-use of existing site materials. An accurate forecast of the mineral requirements using up to date data is likely to produce a lower need. This could remove the Flash Farm site from the Mineral Plan altogether 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Re-calculate the plan using up to date information.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No No If Yes, please give details

Signature Date 26/03/2016 Name Craig A Black If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3612 Rep No: 29764 and 29768 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy DM1 Site code MP2p Map/Plan Paragraph Other

The justification that any adverse impacts on the amenity are avoided and/or adequately mitigated has not been suitably addressed and is indeed woolly i.e. The exact process and the precise measures to mitigate adverse impact have not been detailed with regard to 1. Dust 2. Noise 3. Discharge of contaminantrs into air water and land 4. Visual effect and impact on the countryside. 5. Discharge of water 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Review the justification and provide details of exactly what protections will be put in place to protect the local amenity.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No No If Yes, please give details

Signature Date 26/03/2016 Name Craig A Black If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3612 Rep No: 29765 and 29768 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy DM2 Site code MP2p Map/Plan Paragraph Other

National guidlines dictate that inappropriate development in the flood plain should be avoided and no amount of mitigation would make this acceptable. Quarry workings will affect the water table levels causing them to increase and decrease throughout the seasons. High water levels together with heavy rainfall and high river levels, could result in flooding, particularly in Kelham with water discharge on its way down the Mission drain to the River Trent. Flooding has the potential to necessitate road closures which have occurred on a number of occasions without the additional discharge from the quarry. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Remove Flash Farm as a proposed site.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No No If Yes, please give details

Signature Date 26/03/2016 Name Craig A Black If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3612 Rep No: 29766 and 29768 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy DM9 Site code MP2p Map/Plan Paragraph Other

The A617 is a road which is seriously stressed everyday and when there is an accident, breakdown, coming together of lorries in Kelham or on Kelham Bridge (frequent occurrence), or at Peak holiday times, it grinds to a standstill. These lenghty delays are intolerable to the people living along the A617 and cause considerable disruption to trade in Newark. It is understood that these traffic problems are out with the remit of the current consultation. Incoming and outgoing quarry site traffic will have to use the A617 and add to this already overloaded road. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Remove Flash Farm from the plan or provide an alternative site access away from the A617

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No No If Yes, please give details

Signature Date 26/03/2016 Name Craig A Black If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Office use only Person No: 3612 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29767 and 29768 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy DM12 Site code MP2p Map/Plan Paragraph Other

This green belt site is quality agricultural land which currently supports grazing and various crops. This will be lost for a lifetime if not forever if quarrying takes place. The inert waste required to fill the "hole" left after the sand and gravel has been removed will be more than the County can produce. This sheds doubt on the likelihood of the site ever being restored to its former state. The alternative is lorries travelling hundreds of road miles to provide suitable infill. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Re-consider the siting of the proposed quarry.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes No No If Yes, please give details

Signature Date 26/03/2016 Name Craig A Black If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Office use only Person No: 3613 Rep Nos: Part A – Personal details 29611

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mrs First name Janine Last name Keel Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination / The publication of the recommendations of the inspector / The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan / If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

Signature Date 21/03/16 Name Mrs. Janine Keel If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: 3613 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29611 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Flash Policy Site code Map/Plan Paragraph Other Farm

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes No / Sound? Yes No / If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with / (2) Justified? / (3) Effective? / / prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

Firstly the authors of the Minerals Local Plan have ignored the Council’s strategy that 70% of demolition and building waste will be recycled.

Methods of construction are changing, therefore there will be a reduced need for new sources of aggregate. Also, new demolition material is much more likely to be recycled and used for building. This is laid out in the Council’s own Waste Core Strategy (Jan 2014).

The current draft Minerals Local Plan takes none of this into account. In its estimation of potential demand for primary extraction the Council has grievously overestimated the amount of fresh material which needs to be extracted. Contractors are struggling to ﬁnd buyers for minerals from existing sources.

My concern is to ensure that this Council does not make a decision which is flawed, and based on inaccurate information and in so doing causes considerable damage to the rural landscape.

Secondly increased volume of traffic on the A617 has not been adequately taken into account. Out of date information has been used to assess the impact of considerably more HGV’s having to negotiate Kelham bridge and the roundabout onto the A46 at Newark.

This road is also now the main route for ambulances to Kings Mill hospital. Since the closure of the A and E Department at Newark hospital there has been a substantial increase in the number of emergency vehicles using the A617.

Kelham bridge is an historic bridge which was not built for today’s traffic. There are considerable delays when two HGV’s try to cross on the bridge as only one at a time can negotiate the bend. This has caused damage to the bridge on two occasions since I have been a resident. I moved to the village of Averham in 2008. When this occurs the traffic is diverted up Kelham hill to join the A616 and this causes huge delays.

An addendum to strategic traffic review has very recently been published on the Nottinghamshire County Council’s website saying that inaccurate and out of date traffic figures are simply not acceptable. It is therefore a matter of urgency to ensure that accurate traffic information is acquired before a decision is made regarding the viability of gravel extraction at Flash Farm.

This diversion also occurs when the low lying A617 gets flooded between Kelham and Newark. The planned site is at risk of flooding and a quarry may change the flood pattern possibly endangering the structure of the A617 itself. Storm drains in Kelham could collapse under the added strain. Thirdly as a governor of Manners Sutton Primary School I am extremely concerned about the close proximity of the proposed site to the school. My concerns relate to the health and safety of children and staff.

The impact on their health particularly breathing complaints and Asthma which would be aggravated by the inhalation of dust particles and pollution from increased traffic. Research well documents the dangers to health of those living in close proximity to aggregate extraction (‘Long-term Particulate and Other Air Pollutants and Lung Function in Nonsmokers’ DAVID E. ABBEY, RAOUL J. BURCHETTE, SYNNØVE F. KNUTSEN, WILLIAM F. McDONNELL, MICHAEL D. LEBOWITZ, and PAUL L. ENRIGHT, is one such study.)

Noise pollution is an added concern. Noise from machinery carrying out the extraction and increased HGV activity along the A617 which is adjacent to the school. In addition the increased traffic would cause road safety issues as many of the children at the school are transported daily by car.

In view of these concerns I would urge the council to take into account the long term effects that gravel extraction has on the health of those living in close proximity. There has been extensive research carried out over recent years and a thorough review of this research should be carried out before making a decision as to whether gravel extraction should take place so close to a school community. 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Averham Flash Farm site be REMOVED from the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft document because:

1. The sand and gravel isn’t needed as the demand has been over estimated. The draft document has used out of date and inaccurate data. The data needs to be updated. 2. Up to date traffic information needs to be used to assess the impact of increased HGV usage on the A617. 3. A review of current research into the effects on health to those living close to gravel extraction.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes / No If Yes, please give details Email sent on 23/12/15

Signature Date 21/03/16 Name Mrs. Janine Keel If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:08 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29390

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29390 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO2: Providing an adequate supply of minerals Support/Object: Object

NPPF and Planning Officers Society and Aggregate working party guidelines states that MPAs should use available latest figures when looking at apportionment within emerging MLP calculations. In failing to take into account the most up to dates figures regarding aggregates demand and without giving evidence to support the assumed regional growth demand this plan does not present a credible evidence base. In the case of Notts emerging MLP, using latest 2015 LAA gives a 10 year rolling average sales figure of 2.24million Tonnes/annum (2004‐13) and permitted reserves figure of 17.81 million tonnes (as at Dec 2013) which results in a shortfall of some 20.27 million tonnes for the MLP period to 2030, which is some 9.44 fewer millions of tonnes or, a very significant 32% reduction when compared with current suggestions. The draft submission fails to take into consideration as a mineral resource the role of recycled and secondary aggregates.

SUMMARY

Guidelines not followed in that latest available figure have not been used. supply tonnage for the plan period is overstated. No account taken of recycled and secondary aggregates.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Use the latest available figures in the MLP. Make an estimation of recycled aggregates to deduct from the new tonnage demand forecast.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:13 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29391

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29391 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO8: Protecting agriculturalsoils Support/Object: Object

Flash Farm is a green field site actively farmed for dairy grazing. Green field sites should not be considered as their agricultural value will not be reinstated to a quality that would support the previous level of food production.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash farm from the MLP

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:19 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29393

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29393 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP2: Minerals Provision Support/Object: Object

NPPF and Planning Officers Society and Aggregate working party guidelines states that MPAs should use available latest figures when looking at apportionment within emerging MLP calculations. NCC have failed to use the most up to date data in calculation of sand and gravel requirement throughout the plan period. As a result the forecasted tonnage is unnecessarily high and is out of line with economic trends. The calculated tonnage forecast ignores the positive impact of recycled and secondary minerals and material differences in future construction methods.

In the case of Notts emerging MLP, using latest 2015 LAA gives a 10 year rolling average sales figure of 2.24million Tonnes/annum (2004‐13) and permitted reserves figure of 17.81 million tonnes (as at Dec 2013) which results in a shortfall of some 20.27 million tonnes for the MLP period to 2030, which is some 9.44 fewer millions of tonnes or, a very significant 32% reduction when compared with submission document figures.

SUMMARY the draft MLP fails to use the most up to date figures for demand throughout then pla period.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Use latest available and up to date figures

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:22 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29394

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29394 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP2 Justification Support/Object: Object

NPPF and Planning Officers Society and Aggregate working party guidelines states that MPAs should use available latest figures when looking at apportionment within emerging MLP calculations. NCC have failed to use the most up to date data in calculation of sand and gravel requirement throughout the plan period. As a result the forecasted tonnage is unnecessarily high and is out of line with economic trends. The calculated tonnage forecast ignores the positive impact of recycled and secondary minerals and material differences in future construction methods.

SUMMARY

The Most up to date minerals usage figures have not been used to inform the demand planr fo the plan period.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Use the most up to date figures.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:27 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29395

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29395 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP1 Justification Support/Object: Object

NPPF and Planning Officers Society and Aggregate working party guidelines states that MPAs should use available latest figures when looking at apportionment within emerging MLP calculations. NCC have failed to use the most up to date data in calculation of sand and gravel requirement throughout the plan period. As a result the forecasted tonnage is unnecessarily high and is out of line with economic trends. The calculated tonnage forecast ignores the positive impact of recycled and secondary minerals and material differences in future construction methods.

SUMMARY

NCC have not used the most up to date available figures in the draft MLP as required by national guidance. also failed to take account of recycled and secondary aggregates.

CHANGE TO PLAN use the available up to date figures as in national guidance and take into account recycled and secondary aggregates.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:30 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29396

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29396 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Table 1 Annual aggregate production Support/Object: Object

CHANGE TO PLAN

Recalculate rolling 10 year demand using up to date figures

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:36 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29397

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29397 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2: Sand and gravel provision, MP2p Flash Farm Support/Object: Object

The proposed new site near Newark at Averham will result in a significant increase in traffic volumes in and around Newark, with the majority being Heavy Goods Vehicles, this would further exacerbate the problems with traffic congestion in the Newark area. This factor has not been properly taken into account within the Plan. The use of the sites will also create noise and air pollution in the surrounding villages as well as in the town of Newark and this factor has also not been properly considered within the Plan. Increased traffic through local villages Heavy traffic on the route to Newark ‐ a road that already suffers badly for traffic jams Heavy lorries over an awkward, old bridge not suitable for lorries Adverse impact on the local economy Adverse impact on the rural landscape Damage to human health Flooding and water management Historic environment at danger Cumulative impact of other developments in the area Loss of productive farmland Loss of local amenity and a failure to demonstrate a need to openw this ne greenfield site

SUMMARY excessive traffic, congestion in Newark area, noise, dust, damage to ancient monument Kelham Bridge, adverse human health, flooding risk, loss of farmland, no demonstrated need for this green field site

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:38 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29398

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29398 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2 Justification Support/Object: Object

NCC state that their predicted demand use a 5 year recession and 5 year growth model. It is naïve to assume a 50:50 split. No evidence is given to show what economic growth predictions support the demand through the plan period. The current proposals for demand would require an unrealistically high growth in sales to be achieved. The MLP uses an annual allocation figure of 2.58 million tonnes, and this overestimates demand.

CHANGE TO PLAN include justification for 10 year average and growth predictions.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:43 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29399

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29399 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Table 3 Contributions to the sand and gravel shortfall over the plan period Support/Object: Object

The developement of green field sites is not justified by the estimate of required supply based on most recent LAA figures and increase in use of recycled and secondary aggregates. There is no evidence to demonstrate a need for immediately deliverable sites.

CHANGE TO PLAN justify growth forecast that demonstrates need for immediately deliverable sites.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:46 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29400

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29400 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM3: Agricultural land and soil quality Support/Object: Object

Flash Farm forms part of a productive dairy farm unit and restoration of the land would not return it to current land quality sufficient to sustain current production levels. The developer's proposal included backfilling the site with inert waste streams, however evidence shows that the county’s entire inert waste production would be insufficient for this site alone, therefore the plan is unsustainable.

CHANGE TO PLAN use existing sites.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:49 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29401

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29401 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM5: Landscape character Support/Object: Object

I broadly support the policy statement “that proposals for mineral development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on the character and distinctiveness of the landscape” Notts County Council has seen fit to remove the only sight barrier, namely the woodland bordering the A617, that could have screened Flash farm site. The area around Flash Farm is idyllically rural, not industrial, and sits well within the historic buildings and conservation areas within the local vernacular. Extraction, even with subsequent restoration (unlikely due to limited supply of inert infill), would disrupt or even destroy this landscape.

CHANGE TO PLAN remove Flash Farm from the plan

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 24 March 2016 23:52 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29402

John Allan,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29402 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM12: Restoration, after‐use and aftercare Support/Object: Object

The submission policy states “Mineral extraction proposals which rely on the importation of waste for restoration must: a. Include satisfactory evidence that the waste will be available over an appropriate timescale in the types and quantities assumed;” The developer's proposal included backfilling the site with inert waste streams, however evidence shows that the county’s entire inert waste production would be insufficient for this site alone, therefore the submission MLP is unrealistic, unsustainable and flawed.

CHANGE TO PLAN remove the Flash Farm site from the draft MLP.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Office use only Person No: 3619

Rep Nos: Part A – Personal details 29620

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Councillor First name Maureen Last name Dobson Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent? The Parish of Coddington and the Parish of Barnby in the Willows

Do you wish to be notified of any of the following? (please tick as appropriate) The submission of the Mineral Local Plan for independent examination  The publication of the recommendations of the inspector  The adoption of the Minerals Local Plan If agent details are provided contact will be made through them unless otherwise instructed.

If you would like to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary. Please note that participation in the oral hearing sessions is at the discretion of the Inspector. As the Democratic Elected Member for the Collingham division of Nottinghamshire County Council of which Coddington is a part

Signature Date 23 March 2016 Name Councillor Maureen Dobson If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: Part B – Your representation 3619 Rep No: 29620 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy Site code Map/Plan Paragraph Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes No Sound? Yes No  If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with (2) Justified?  (3) Effective? prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

I believe that the Holme Farm site is more suitable for delivery of sand and gravel over the next planned period and based where it would be capable of delivering direct to A1 North and therefore supply Yorkshire and the A46 south Nottingham/ Leicester area with less problems for the community of which in item 2 of the submission draft 2.1 Your Vision I quote ‘Planning effectively for the future means having a good understanding of our current situation and what is likely to change. It is important to take account of environmental assets including our countryside, wildlife and heritage, as well as the quality of life and well-being of our communities’

The Authority does not seem to take account of representation from the people.

It is for these reasons that I consider the plan unsound 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

4.8 Coddington (site MP2o) 4.8.4 ‘The form of access junction onto the A17 has still to be determined and this would be examined in greater detail as part of a supporting Transport Assessment for any subsequent planning application. The A17 is a modern high standard road (open to traffic in 1993), is subject to the national speed limit of 70mph along the proposed quarry site frontage and forms part of the County Council’s Primary Route Network, bypassing the village of Coddington on its’ north eastern side. A junction would need to be designed and constructed to full Design Manual Roads and Bridges (DMRB) standards. A range of junction options present themselves from priority junctions (with or without ghost island right turn lanes and possible restricted HGV movements), a roundabout junction or traffic signal control. The County Council as local highways authority is content that an acceptable access solution is deliverable.’

Within this statement there are inaccuracies ie the A17 is 60mph not 70 as stated (one small correction but how many more within this document)

It has not been consider how much traffic the Newark Showground generates, there is a minimum of 500 large event’s per annum generating 600,000 visitors per year, while not all will be single car users.

I feel you have already decided this a suitable application for a quarry without any transport problems I was under the impression that every planning application was taken on its merits.

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes  No If Yes, please give details June 2014 e-mail / January 2016 (Council)

Signature Date 23 March 2016 Name Councillor Maureen Dobson If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:22 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29344

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29344 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Plan 1: Overview of the Plan Area Support/Object: Object

The Health summary fails to acknowledge the current high level of respiratory disease within the Trent Valley population. Respiratory disease is closely linked to particle levels in the air which will only increase with this proposed mineral extraction and greater volumes of vehicles. This should clearly be acknowledged in the health assessment.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Acknowledge current levels of respiratory disease and use information accordingly.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:35 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29345

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29345 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Nottinghamshire's mineral resource and industry Support/Object: Object

Recycled and secondary waste has not been considered as resources.

CHANGE TO PLAN

The contribution of waste should be included among the resources.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

This email is acknowledgement of the receipt of your representation. It is NOT confirmation that the representation has yet been registered. You willt no receive any further notification by email that your representation has been registered until the end of the participation period.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:35 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29346

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29346 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO2: Providing an adequate supply of minerals Support/Object: Object

The figures which have been used within the plan are out of date and, as such, irrelevant to the needs of today and the future.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Correct and up to date information needs to be used and more evidence given of local growth plans.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:36 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29347

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29347 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO5: Minimising impacts on communities Support/Object: Object

The impact on the local community would be massive. I have already commented on health aspects. The quality of life of local communities would be greatly compromised.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:36 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29348

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29348 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO7: Protecting and enhancing historic assets Support/Object: Object

This area is rich in history and heritage and should be respected and protected.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the mineral plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:37 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29349

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29349 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO8: Protecting agriculturalsoils Support/Object: Object

Flash Farm is a greenfield site. Existing brownfield sites should be used.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:38 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29350

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29350 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP2: Minerals Provision Support/Object: Object

Out of date figures have been used to draw up the minerals plan so it clearly does not show a true picture.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Without doubt, correct figures must be used.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:39 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29351

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29351 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP2 Justification Support/Object: Object

The information used to compile the minerals plan is out of date.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan and, at the very least, use the correct, up‐to‐date figures.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:39 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29352

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29352 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP3: Biodiversity‐Led Restoration Support/Object: Object

The area around Newark already has enough old gravel workings that now provide wetland/water environments. Given that there is unlikely to be enought iner backfill to enable Flash Farm to be restored to agricultural land based on NCC waste figures, this site is likely to become a lake. For all such lakes and wetland environments there should be an established and funded plan for their management before the site can be exploited.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:40 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29353

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29353 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP4: Climate Change Support/Object: Object

Sites are in areas of flood risk.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

This email is acknowledgement of the receipt of your representation. It is NOT confirmation that the representation has yet been registered. Yout will no receive any further notification by email that your representation has been registered until the end of the participation period.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:41 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29354

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29354 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP5: Sustainable Transport Support/Object: Object

The local traffic volumes already create problems. Adding to these volumes will only make the local road networks more congested.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:42 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29355

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29355 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP5 Justification Support/Object: Object

The A617 is already a high usage road which has already had it's speed limit dropped as it has presumably been recognised as unsafe. There are regular delays heading through Kelham as there are numerous places where two large vehicles are unable to pass safely.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the mineral plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:42 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29356

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29356 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP6 Justification Support/Object: Object

The plan will have a detrimental impact on a nationally important heritage site ,i.e. Kelham and its setting, where significant parts of the civil war where played out. Gravel exploitation will destroy evidence of previous use, as indicated by crop marks and other finds from test digs Pressure of increased HGV use on existing infrastructure especially road links and Kelham Bridge Unacceptable impact on community amenity for Averham , Kelham and other villages on A617.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Flash Farm to be removed from the list of preferred sites to meet the need to protect important heritage assets as per national policy and to prevent loss of community amenity and pressure on unsuitable and already stressed road system

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

This email is acknowledgement of the receipt of your representation. It is NOT confirmation that the representation has yet been registered.t You will no receive any further notification by email that your representation has been registered until the end of the participation period.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:43 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29357

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29357 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP1 Justification Support/Object: Object

Out of date figures used to formulate the plan.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Use correct and true figures. Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:43 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29358

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29358 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Table 1 Annual aggregate production Support/Object: Object

Incorrect and out of date figures used.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Use correct figures. Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:44 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29359

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29359 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2: Sand and gravel provision, MP2p Flash Farm Support/Object: Object

The A617 is already a heavily used road which regularly gets blocked at Kelham. The impact on residents living locally to the site and along the A617 will be detrimental. Out of date data suggests we do not need to turn this farmed, greenfield land into a quarry.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 29 March 2016 11:44 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29360

Rachel Bradey,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29360 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2 Justification Support/Object: Object

Out of date information used.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the minerals plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 3626 29985

Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 12 March 2016 18:12 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29156

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Miss J Smith,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29156 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2o ‐ Coddington Support/Object: Object

*Major impact on the local area, Stapleford Woods being on the very edge of the suggested site ‐ wildlife/woods will be threatened. *Risk to health, due to dust and noise pollution, along with more traffic. *More traffic = more traffic congestion and higher risk of more accidents. *Too close to residential areas & school.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Coddington site off the mineral plan all together.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 3674 30018

From: Every Occasion Events Ltd < Sent: 23 March 2016 15:20 To: Development Planning Subject: Nottinghamshire County Councils Minerals Plan- Proposed Gravel Extraction at Flash Farm, Averham.

To whom it may concern

Please take this email as a personal objection to the local proposed gravel extraction at Flash Farm, Averham.

I am a local resident living in the beautiful rural area of Averham with my young family children aged between seven and thirteen. Our house is situated alongside the A617 and facing the open fields of the planned gravel extraction. I have major noise concerns living so close to the planned site and all the extra traffic travilling along the A617. As the A617 is already a very busy road which I use many times a day to get my older children to and from school and visit the local town.

The A617, Kelham Bridge and the A1 are frequently overwhelmed with heavy traffic and our local village and town of Newark is brought to a stand still on a regular basis due to accidents and increased traffic which has a serious impact on the local area without adding the additional lorries to the roads from the gravel site.

I have serious concerns over the increased noise, vibration and pollution that the gravel pit and extra vehicles would cause as our village is so close to the planned site and the overall impact it will have on the rural area.

Also my youngest child goes to the local school in the village which is situated next to the main road and all the extra pollution from the increased traffic is a major concern to me that my daughter will be in constant contact with all the extra pollution the site will cause.

Averham is a beautiful area in which we do not need a Gravel Extraction Site.

Kind Regards

Jo Wilson

1 John Wilson

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 11:50 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29333

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29333 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP1: Aggregate Provision Support/Object: Object

The table shown is based upon data from the LAA 2013 and is not the most up to date available. By using data from the LAA 2015 estimated demand to 2030 will be reduced to 38.08 million tonnes. If LAA 2016 becomes available by the time of the planning enquiry it will no doubt reduce further.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Replace figures in MP1 aggregate provision by latest available LAA figures.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 11:59 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29334

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29334 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Table 1 Annual aggregate production Support/Object: Object

The table in the draft LMP is taken from the LAA 2013 and is therefore not up to date.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Replace with latest LAA data in line with NPPF requirements. The LAA 2015 provides figures for the 10 year period 2004 to 2013 inclusive.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 12:11 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29336

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29336 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Table 2 LAA Average Production Figure and Estimated Total Aggregate Demand Support/Object: Object

The table is based on out of date data from the LAA 2013. The LAA 2015 provides the currently most up to figures which shows that annual production figures for sand and gravel remain very low and therefore estimated forward demand can be reduced to 38.08 million tonnes. The lack of data re recycled and secondary aggregates as shown in the Core Waste Strategy of Jan 2014 also leads to an incomplete picture of total aggregate supply.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Redraw table bases on latest data provided in the LAA 2015, ( and use LAA 2016 data if it becomes available)

Incorporate recycled and secondary minerals supply as quantified in the Core Waste Strategy.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 14:00 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29339

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29339 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2 Justification Support/Object: Object

Justification is based on out of date data from LAA 2013. Most up‐to date data (from LAA 2015) should be used.. Justification doesd not buil in numerical findings and targets as shown in NCC Waste Core Strategy which with National policy objectives are dramatically increasing the amount of recycled aggregates, which is leading to a structural decline in sales of primary sand and gravel extraction. Using LAA 2015 figures requires less new greenfield sites.Acknowledgement of the data in Waste Core Strategy and resultant structural shift in supply may well make all greenfield sites unnecessary during the lifespan of this LMP

CHANGE TO PLAN

Acknowledge the structural change in balance between primary and recycled minerals . Utilise latest available data from LAA 2015(or LAA 2016 if available) and numerical data from Waste Core Strategy to provide an estimate of future sand and gravel requirements during the life of the plan. Remove Flash Farm and Shelford green field sites from plan, which are due to start production in 2016, and keep other greenfield sites under review based on data as it becomes available.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 14:45 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29340

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29340 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP5 Justification Support/Object: Object

The non quantified explanation of primary mineral sales and forecast demand if unquantified would clearly be unacceptable. However, secondary and recycled minerals which play an important and expanding role in the product mix are unquantified. The figures and forecast growth in both supply of waste and the degree of recycling from the Core Waste Strategy are not incorporated in the draft plan nor are the downward effects on primary mineral exploitation incorporated in the plan.

CHANGE TO PLAN

The expanding contribution of recycled minerals and resultant structural changes should be built in to the draft MLP. Numerical data and forecasts from the Waste Core Strategy should be incorporated in this section. This can the be used to explain the massive decline in primary sand and gravel sales. Also a new combined data bank should be used in forecasting future sand andd gravel requirements.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 23 March 2016 15:03 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29341

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29341 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: SP2 Justification Support/Object: Object

The justification is built round the provision of primary minerals and does not acknowledge the importance and growing significance of , in particular, recycled minerals. This singularity of focus leads to the important role of recycled and secondary minerals not fully integrated in the plan. It may also be a reason behind the quantified data in the Core Waste Strategy not being incorporated. The end result is that the requirement for primary minerals is overstated which can cause the LMP to fail on its sustainability and environmental pre requisites.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Stress and quantify the expanding role of recycled minerals in particular. Align document with Waste Core Strategy Adjust forecasts to incorporate quantified role of recycled and secondary minerals .

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 10:46 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29439

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29439 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Chapter 1: What is the Minerals Local PLan Support/Object: Object

Whilst supporting the basic objectives of the LMP, it is flawed since does not adequately investigate and quantify the activities that lead to the demand for primary minerals and in particular sand and gravel. Specifically:‐ construction activity ( as shown in the 2012‐2016 construction skills network East Midlands) which shows that construction activity is not directly related to primary minerals output. The effect of landfill taxes from their introduction in 1996 to date. The output of recycled and secondary minerals as numerically stated and forecast in the NCC Waste Core Strategy. The end result is that the dramatic changes to primary minerals production is not explained or justified and that forecast demand is fundamentally flawed, which will as things stand lead to the opening up of greenfield sites that are unnecessary.

SUMMARY

The LMP is flawed since it does not aim to understand the numerical data that is available for construction output, the effect of landfill taxes, and the growth of secondary and in particular recycled minerals which is documented numerically in the NCC Waste Core Strategy 2014. The effect is that the changes to primary minerals sales are not understood and forecast requirements for the future are overstated. Greenfield sites are subject to development which will prove unnecessary.

CHANGE TO PLAN

The quantified data that is available on construction, recycling and landfill taxes needs to be incorporated in working out future demand

The document is unsound because it is not: i. Positively prepared ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

2 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 10:56 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29441

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29441 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO1: Improving the sustainability of minerals development Support/Object: Object

The document does not use available and quantified information with regard to secondary and recycled minerals. This information is available in the NCC Waste Core Strategy. Use of available data will cause significantly better understanding of the levers that effect primary minerals demand and therefore significanltly improve the sustainability of minerals development

CHANGE TO PLAN

Numerical data on recycled and secondary minerals from NCC Waste Core Strategy 2014 and elsewhere needs to be incorporated into the forecast of demand.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 11:04 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29442

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29442 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: Strategic Objectives, SO5: Minimising impacts on communities Support/Object: Object

The draft plan does not minimise impacts on communities since it does fully explore and incorporate data re construction activity, landfill tax and reduction of actual landfill, and increasing role of recycling inert waste. Also since it uses out of date data for forecasting demand it projects greater demand than has already been proven by sales in the LAA 2015.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Impact on communities can be significantly reduced by upto date data ( LAA 2015) and building in effects of recycling and drastically reduced figures of waste going to landfill.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 11:13 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29443

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29443 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP2: Sand and gravel provision Support/Object: Object

The sites have been identified to provide an adequate supply of minerals during the life of the plan. However the demand analysis is both fundamentally flawed since it uses out of date data, and does not utilise numerical data about construction activity, effects of landfill tax or recycled information as supplied in the NCC Core Waste Strategy 2014

CHANGE TO PLAN

The forecast demand will hopefully be reworked enabled removal of green field sites from the plan.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 11:21 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29444

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29444 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: MP5: Secondary and recycled aggregates Support/Object: Object

The policy as presently stated provides no information of the quantities that are being made available nor the forecast of quantities that will be available in the future. Neither does it state the very significant and downward effect on primary mineral requirements. These are available in NCC Core Waste Strategy 2014

CHANGE TO PLAN

The quantified and growing importance of secondary and recycled minerals needs to be built into the policy

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 11:34 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29445

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29445 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM1 Justification Support/Object: Object

The development of Flash Farm will have a significant impact on the local amenity of Averham and Kelham in particular. Visual intrusion will be obvious for all to see especially now that council sanctioned removal of trees and bushes has just taken place. Dust and mud will inevitable be deposited on the A617. Floodlighting will be detrimental to the area. The latest A617 traffic survey undertaken by the NCC dated February 2016 indicates that trafficl is at an al time high. The pinch point at Kelham bridge where 2 HGV's cannot even pass at the same time will become worse

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the plan from a local amenity point of view as well as the evidence that it is not required.

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 11:48 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29446

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29446 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM8 Justification Support/Object: Object

It is argued that the addition of a gravel pit at Flash Farm will not cause massive effect on the various environmental, transport and community issues that have been identified in the preparatory development of the draft LMP. However , the cumulative effect is understated. During the last 10 years we have had the building and commissioning of a large power station at Staythorpe and now proposals for a gravel pit at Flash Farm. On the other hand the council is encouraging the local heritage with the national civil war museum and the tourism centred development of Kelham Hall a brilliant grade 1 listed building. The industrialisation of the landscape with the developing of tourism are in conflict. The development of Flash farm will undermine the council supported growth of the area as a tourist hotspot.

SUMMARY

The cumulative effect of Flash farm development on the land use of this supposedly rural area will be significant and undermines the council supported drive to develop the tourist potential of the are ( Kelham Hall, Civil War Museum and trails etc)

CHANGE TO PLAN

Flash Farm should be removed from the Draft LMP

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 Eilidh McCallum

From: Nottinghamshire County Council Sent: 28 March 2016 12:02 To: Subject: Representation received. ID:29447

Michael Staff,

Thank you for your representation which we received as follows:

Representation ID: 29447 Document: Minerals Local Plan Submission Draft Section: DM9 Justification Support/Object: Object

The A617 is an unimproved A road subject to a 50 mph speed limit from Newark to Mansfield. pinch Kelham Bridge which is so narrow two HGV's cannot pass at the same time is a growing problem as traffic levels have surged( see NCC traffic survey Feb 2016). The road cannot cope with existing traffic and blocks back regularly. Flash Farm adds what can be seen as an acceptable increase in traffic.However taken cumulatively with other locally generated growth and A1/M1 link traffic it is no longer fit for purpose or able to cope.

CHANGE TO PLAN

Remove Flash Farm from the draft LMP>

The document is unsound because it is not: ii. Justified iii. Effective iv. Consistent with national policy

How you would like your representation to be considered at the independent examination: Written representation.

1 3729 29918 3729 29918

Office use only Person No: 3754

Rep Nos: Part A – Personal details 29809

Personal details Agent details (where applicable) Title Mr First name Premji Last name Patel Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Postcode Email For those replying on behalf of an organisation or group:

Organisation Job title

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group, how was the response approved and how many people does it represent?

Signature Date 29/3/2016 Name P.Patel If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature. Office use only Person No: 3754 Part B – Your representation Rep No: 29809 Please read the guidance note before completing this section.

1. To which part of the document does this representation relate? Policy Site code Map/Plan Map/Plan Paragraph Other

2. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be: Legally compliant? Yes No Sound? Yes No No If you do not consider the identified part of the document to be sound, please continue to question 3. In other cases please go to question 4. If you think the identified part of the document is not legally compliant and is unsound and therefore want to answer ‘no’ to both parts of this question, please fill in two separate forms.

3. Do you consider the identified part of the document to be unsound because it is not: (1) Positively (4) Consistent with Yes (2) Justified? (3) Effective? prepared? national policy? You can select more than one test if you feel it is appropriate.

NOISE The village is a peaceful environment, the noise generated by the quarry will have a detrimental impact on our living standards and conditions

DUST The dust and airborne particles generated by the quarry will severely impact those in the immediate vicinity firstly the children who train at the football field my son being one of them. and will damage farmland, wildlife, trees and woodland

WEEKEND WORKS There is no confirmation that I can find that noise will NOT be generated at night / weekends when the village are trying to relax / live the social part of their lives such disruption over the live of the quarry is too detrimental

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS TO THE AREA We as a family and as a village enjoy the public outside space of Stapleford woods, having such a large quarry will affect our enjoyment of the facilities, the affect of the dust will affect the woodland and the enjoyment of local amenities Newark Air Museum, go-cart and the showground

LIGHT POLUTION The quarry will be visable from our house, the light pollution will affect our house at night times

I have 2 sons that were born after selecting a peaceful safe location in the village of coddington, one is 8 and the other is 3; both my sons future will be affected because a commercial decision has take place to suggest a huge quarry to take place within what was a peaceful safe environment; a quarry that will affect their activities, noise, dust levels and even increase the possibility of accidents to and from their route to school over a period of 2 decades plus, how can their rights be ignored in this way; what protection as a parent can I give them towards their safety and health? I have to protest against this plan as any parent would. We all have a basic human right to clean air, this proposal will cancel that, We have a right to sleep at peacefully the noise that will be generated will affect this 5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the identified part of the document legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test(s) identified in question 3 (if applicable). Please state why this change will make it legally compliant or sound and suggest revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Please expand the box as necessary or attach additional sheets. If attaching sheets, please clearly mark these with the part of the document the representation relates to and your name.

Please note: You should provide as much information/justification in your representation as you feel necessary and appropriate because once you have submitted your representation there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to submit anything else unless requested to do so by the planning inspector. I totally oppose the plan for the quarry, As far as I am aware those responisble in proposing / possibly executing these works do not live in our village they will not bear the consequences rising from this plan. I cannot agree to a plan that increases risk to my family thru concerns raised in section 4

6. Have you raised this issue previously (during earlier stages of consultation)? Yes Yes No If Yes, please give details Petition against quarry signed

Signature Date 29/3/2016 Name P Patel If you are submitting your representation electronically you do not need to provide a signature