Policy MIN9 - Restoration and aftercare

Support

Representation ID: 4718

Received: 10/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Tim Collins

I welcome the importance attached to biodiversity in the restoration and aftercare of mineral extraction sites however I feel the policy should go further and identify biodiversity as the priority for after use. This does not exclude agriculture as, for example, restoration of limestone grassland creates opportunities for grazing. The rationale for this assertion being that the vast majority of
mineral extraction sites in the county are led by limestone extraction and that the Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) identifies the protection and recreation of limestone grassland as a priority. By linking these two factors together mineral extraction can make a very significant contribution to the county BAP. In particular greater emphasis should be given to how
restoration and aftercare plans help deliver and secure effective wildlife corridors (and potential future wildlife corridors) between the site being restored and existing limestone grassland sites.

Support

Representation ID: 5120

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England supports this policy and particularly the first paragraph. We would particularly like to see net gain achieved at each phase of mineral extraction and restoration. We are pleased to note that the restoration of minerals sites should integrate into the forthcoming Nature Recovery Network and be sympathetic to the local landscape character and wider setting of the site. We also welcome the points regarding appropriate after uses following restoration. We agree that the long-term capability of Best & Most Versatile soils should be restored and retained for a future resource.

Support

Representation ID: 5845

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

But it needs to be more specific with respect to biodiversity and C Sequestration, linking with EN2 and EN4. Net gain should be achieved at each phase of mineral extraction and restoration. Restoration should not include buildings for warehousing or light industry. Restoration to agriculture should be for grazing pasture only (since this helps to maintain species rich grassland). Cereal cultivation often involves importing top soil, and prevents opportunities for habitat creation and Biodiversity Net Gain.

Object

Representation ID: 5871

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

This policy should prioritise biodiversity as the main aim of restoration and aftercare.

Sections a) to e) are too general, make no distinction between size of sites, make no mention of Priority habitats, and omit to fully recognise the Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan, and the Natural Character Areas. The Leicestershire Mineral Plan provides a good local example of a more specific and differentiated plan.

So sections a) to e) should be replaced by detailed suggested policy change provided in full submission based o the following:
“There should be a presumption in favour of restoration for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Site restoration shall attain a net gain in biodiversity.........

Support

Representation ID: 6363

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Can water conservation and flood management be made a priority. If a site can be sensibly used for these purposes, then maybe its should be the first choice. Such use doe not preclude other uses such as agriculture, environmental conservation or recreation.

Support

Representation ID: 6396

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

It is important that the restoration policy recognises the potential range of restoration opportunities within the County and contains sufficient freedom to ensure that future restoration schemes can be tailored to meet emerging trends/objective (as external factors may dictate).

Object

Representation ID: 6733

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Lucy & Tom Pengilley Gibb

Number of people: 2

Planning agendas of using reclaimed man made land which has been turned to effective agricultural land should in particular be scrutinised - and not be a given policy for a county with so much valuable quarry material resources. This future impact would be great. The life cycle of this land has been given back to green resources and should not be taken again.

Object

Representation ID: 6867

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

The policy is generally welcomed, however the significance of mineral site restoration for Calcareous Grassland enhancement/creation is lost. It is acknowledged that by definition this could be included
within point b., however much greater emphasis must be placed on this habitat type as a priority for limestone mineral site restoration in order for the scale of restoration needed to be realised (Leicestershire and Rutland BAP, 2016-2026).

Object

Representation ID: 6953

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr . Eatough

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

The use of the word ‘temporary’ is misleading – we would encourage that all minerals and waste development is subject to a restoration scheme and would recommend deletion of the word temporary in this policy.

Where after-uses are mentioned, we would encourage that the policy includes a requirement for the after-use of a site to be consulted on with the local community and agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

We would also encourage that the wording of the policy makes clear that the restoration and aftercare off mineral development will be secured through appropriate conditions. We would like to emphasise that this should be included in the policy wording, rather than supporting
text for the policy so as to ensure it is given significant weight.

Support

Representation ID: 7096

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Wilkin

The cement business at Ketton needs to be used to provide employment but the resulting “holes in the ground” need to be developed to provide another area for important enhancement of wildlife and recreation alongside Rutland Water.

Object

Representation ID: 7463

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

The lack of a robust policy on restoration following mineral workings is not just a Rutland issue – too often Local Plans do not include them. It is a significant and unacceptable omission. Everyone knows mineral extraction permissions will last for a long time and they will almost inevitably now include conditions around proper environmental mitigation and restoration, (in essence, turning a former hillside into a valley or a lake.) However, time and again land owners/ mineral operators will try to evade these obligations – knowing that they were made many years previously. We had the situation recently at the now quarried out Greetham Quarry where there was an attempt to avoid restoration with a speculative application for a very significant volume of warehousing. This of course does directly affect us in Cottesmore, as the main east west movement would be along the B668 through Cottesmore. The only safeguards against this evasion of responsibilities are strong policies, forcing operators to implement the agreed restoration plan.

Support

Representation ID: 7597

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Criteria d) is supported.

Support

Representation ID: 7965

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

MIN9 - Generally Support