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.

Noted. Policy MIN9 - Restoration and aftercare, does prioritise biodiversity as an after-use, requiring restoration of temporary minerals and waste development to provide at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), a mandatory requirement under the Environment Act (2021). The BAP and priority habitats are recognised through the plan and its policies; however, it is not considered necessary to highlight limestone grassland over others. Such features will be taken into account on a site-by-site basis in line with the Local Plan policies and other relevant policies.

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.

Noted.

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.

The plan should be read as a whole and where relevant, any proposals for minerals and waste-related development must also be in compliance with Local Plan Policies EN2 and EN4. Policy MIN9 requires restoration of minerals development to provide at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), a mandatory requirement under the Environment Act (2021). Policy MIN9 supports the restoration of sites for economic purposes only where it is coupled with a secondary after-use (such as biodiversity/nature conservation for example), and where fully in accordance with relevant Local plan policies. Restoration to agriculture is supported where it safeguards the long-term potential of best and most versatile agricultural land and conserves soil resources. The type of agricultural land use will be assessed on a site-by-site basis, in line with the Local Plan policies and other relevant policies.

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.........

Policy MIN9 does prioritise biodiversity as an after-use, requiring the restoration of temporary minerals and waste development to provide at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), a mandatory requirement under the Environment Act (2021). The Leicestershire and Rutland BAP and priority habitats, Landscape Character Areas and carbon sequestration are recognised through the plan and its policies. Restoration afteruse will be taken into account on a site-by-site basis in line with the RLP policies and other relevant policies; it is not a case of one size fits all. Restoration must be sympathetic to the landscape character of the area and enhance the site. The existing characteristics of the site, ecological linkages, blue and green infrastructure networks, setting within the local and wider landscape and built environment, together with the needs and requirements of the local community, will need to be taken into account when considering the most appropriate restoration after-use(s).

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.

Policy MIN9 supports a range of after-uses including water conservation and flood management. Restoration afteruse is determined on a site-by-site basis in line with the RLP policies and other relevant policies; it is not a case of one size fits all. Restoration must be sympathetic to the landscape character of the area and enhance the site. The existing characteristics of the site, ecological linkages, blue and green infrastructure networks, setting within the local and wider landscape and built environment, together with the needs and requirements of the local community, will need to be taken into account when considering the most appropriate restoration after-use(s).

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).

Noted.

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.

No comments.

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).

Noted. The BAP and priority habitats are recognised through the plan and its policies; however, it is not considered necessary to highlight calcareous grassland over others. Such features will be taken into account on a site-by-site basis in line with the Local Plan policies and other relevant policies.

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.

The word temporary is used to distinguish between permanent and non-permanent minerals and waste development. It would be inappropriate for permanent minerals or waste development (for example an aggregate rail depot or waste recycling facility with no permission end date) to include a restoration scheme.
Consultation on the proposed after-uses of minerals and waste sites are dealt with at the planning application stage as opposed to being detailed in the Local Plan. As set out in government guidance (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-matters), after a local planning authority has received a planning application, it will undertake a period of consultation where views on the proposed development can be expressed. Planning conditions are handled via the development management process also.

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.

Noted.

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.

Local Plan Policy MIN9 - Restoration and aftercare, requires all proposals for temporary minerals development to include a restoration scheme to secure delivery of high-quality restoration and aftercare, including provisions for ongoing management and maintenance where necessary.

Support

Representation ID: 7597

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Criteria d) is supported.

Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7965

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

MIN9 - Generally Support

Noted.