Policy MIN4 - Development criteria for mineral extraction

Support

Representation ID: 5022

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

Any potential adverse issues should be highlighted to affected communities in advance of any decision on whether to proceed and mitigating actions approved by the communities involved.

Object

Representation ID: 5119

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England would want to ensure that Habitats Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves and irreplaceable habitats (including Ancient Woodland and veteran trees) will be safeguarded from inappropriate minerals and waste development. We consider that this policy does not specifically say this. A cross reference to Policy EN1: Protection of Sites, Habitats and Species should be made. It should also be ensured at the outset of any mineral development that appropriate Biodiversity Net Gain can be achieved.

Object

Representation ID: 5400

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Heidelberg Materials UK

MIN4 (b.ii) refers to ‘adopted cement production rate’ but the Local Plan does not appear to define what that is with any clarity. NPPF 220 requires the planning authority to provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals. NPPF footnote 78 notes only the minimum reserve levels to be provided and does not seek to limit what that might be. Reference to an adopted production rate does not therefore accord with national policy. MIN 4 should be amended to remove references to the ‘adopted cement production rate’.

Object

Representation ID: 5837

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

This needs to include quantitative risk assessments of potentially adverse effects on the local community, including health, and, as in CC8 state buffer distances etc. Also measures to ensure pedestrian safety on roads without footpaths, with respect to HGV load safety and deposition on the roads, not just Highway Safety. And to assess the cumulative effects of several quarries in close proximity on the amenity and health of nearby communities.
And to include an obligation on the operator to review the original risk assessments and mitigation measures within a time limit of a stated % increase in output being recorded.

Object

Representation ID: 6385

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

Within MIN4 b) iii, reference to ‘Rutland’ should be amended to ‘Rutland and the surrounding region’.
The preference for proposals at allocated sites risks prejudicing other applications, particularly if the sole proposed allocation is not brought forward. This may have a detrimental impact on material supply (particularly in relation to building stone), competition and the local economy. In order to support the continuation of existing operations, proposals for the extension/direct replacement of existing sites should be given equal importance to allocated sites.

Support

Representation ID: 6462

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

Support BUT protection of adjacent populations needs to be considered in relation to Noise , Dust , and Traffic. Real time monitoring of particulate matter is essential

Object

Representation ID: 6519

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: BCH UK Ltd.

Agent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

Within MIN4 b) iii, reference to ‘Rutland’ should be amended to ‘Rutland and the surrounding region’. The preference for proposals at allocated sites risks prejudicing other applications, particularly if the sole proposed allocation is not brought forward. This may have a detrimental impact on material supply, competition and the local economy. In order to support the continuation of existing operations, proposals for the extension/direct replacement of existing sites should be given equal importance to allocated sites.

Object

Representation ID: 6744

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Rutland Quarry Forum

Agent: Rutland Quarry Forum

Representation suggest changes to the wording of policy MIN4 to reduce ambiguity and establish more rigorous criteria (such as replacing should with must) and adding the following final paragraph:
Should extraction rates at site exceed 110% of original consented rates the operator must, within 3 months of increased rates, review the risk assessments and mitigation measures supporting the original application to
determine the validity of assumptions used and whether the mitigation measures remain appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 6866

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Policy is weak and does not correspond with Policy EN1: Protection of Sites, Habitats and Species to ensure that designated sites for nature conservation/irreplaceable habitats are appropriately protected. This should be extended to Priority Habitats as mineral extraction as
significantly contributed to losses historically.
Mineral developments must also align with Policy EN3 – Biodiversity Net Gain, ensuring that BNG can be achieved in principle and in perpetuity.

Object

Representation ID: 6952

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr . Eatough

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

Whilst we support the objective of this policy, in line with the national practice guidance, proposals should also be required to consider any impacts on landscape, heritage,
ecology, lighting impacts and flood risk and this should be included in the policy wording.

Our client made an objection to the forthcoming proposals at Grange Top Quarry during their
recent public consultation. In light of this, we strongly suggest that the set of requirements included within supporting text for Policy MIN4 is extended to include the
following:
• Landscape and Visual Impacts
• Ecology Impacts
• Heritage Impacts which considers heritage assets within close proximity to the site;
• Lighting Impacts

Object

Representation ID: 7097

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Wilkin

Re: The cement business at Ketton - Further excavation towards local housing does need to be carefully controlled.

Object

Representation ID: 7300

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton and Tinwell Joint Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

We feel this policy should have more emphasis on restoration of mineral extraction areas for nature recovery within the county.

In particular, MIN 4 is very selective about the areas where it says damage should be avoided. It does not for instance mention Ketton Quarry Nature Reserve, which given its proximity to the new extraction areas still needs consideration. In addition, rather than purely looking at protection of, for instance, SSSIs, there should be adequate protection for general field and woodland biodiversity, particularly given the destructive nature of the mineral extraction process.

Object

Representation ID: 7462

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Object to current policy – needs strengthening. Development Criteria for Mineral Extraction. - More specifically, we fully endorse the comments made by the Quarry Forum that this policy needs to be strengthened, in particular around proper quantitative risk assessments, demonstrating any adverse impacts and how operators will be forced to protect the local amenity, particularly of adjoining settlements. Where we share a more direct concern, to the quarries at Greetham for example, is to beef up the wording around highway safety, including the security of loads and safety of pedestrians.

Support

Representation ID: 7594

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Criteria b) iii) is welcomed. The second paragraph is also
welcomed.

The last paragraph of the supporting text ‘Why is this
policy needed’ is also welcomed.

Unfortunately due to capacity (and the scale of the safeguarding areas proposed) it has not been possible to fully assess the proposed minerals and waste sites or the proposed safeguarding areas at this stage.

Support

Representation ID: 7628

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Minerals and waste developments have the potential to pollute groundwater, these types of developments should therefore not be located in the most sensitive locations for groundwater. We recommend reference is made to this in policies MIN4 and WST2. See the Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen t_data/file/692989/Envirnment-Agency-approach-to-groundwater-protection.pdf

Object

Representation ID: 7810

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

Policy WST2 clause (e) considers a range of impacts in terms of waste related development. We suggest that a similar clause is included for proposals in relation to future mineral extraction.

Support

Representation ID: 7960

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

MIN4 Generally Support

Object

Representation ID: 7993

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Harold Dermott

Ketton Cement works has detrimental impacts on pollution, creation of dangerous gases and carbon generation in Rutland. This cannot be ignored. Options for management include sequestration and offsetting. Please read accompanying report.