Nottingham City Council is preparing to challenge a proposed sand and gravel quarry at a public inquiry set for next year. The application, submitted by Land Logical Ltd in 2024, seeks permission to extract 2.5 million tonnes of material from a site located between Barton-in-Fabis and Clifton, partially within the city boundary.

The plans were initially rejected by Nottinghamshire County Council’s planning committee in December 2023. While the city council was scheduled to review the application concerning the smaller section of the site within its jurisdiction, an appeal was lodged by the applicant against both the county council’s refusal and the city council’s delay in making a decision. An independent planning inspector will oversee the inquiry and hear submissions from all stakeholders.

At a meeting on Wednesday, the city’s planning committee voted overwhelmingly to oppose the quarry, with all but one councillor supporting refusal. This majority stance ran counter to the recommendation of planning officers, who had advised approval. Councillor Kevin Clarke of Clifton East highlighted long-standing community concerns, noting the issue has been under consideration for over a decade, including a withdrawn application in 2022. He expressed particular worry about the impact on residents at the nearby Lark Hill retirement village and the broader population across Barton, Gotham, and Thrumpton.

The site falls within the Nottingham to Derby green belt, prompting environmental objections. Councillor Pavlos Kotsonis (Labour) voiced apprehension that permitting the quarry could weaken future green belt protections. Councillor Shugufta Ouddos (Green) cited potential risks to protected wildlife species such as barn owls and otters. These concerns were echoed by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, which warned the project would damage designated local wildlife sites and disrupt important grazing habitats used by birds overwintering at Attenborough Nature Reserve, located across the River Trent.

Public interest in the application has been substantial, with approximately 1,450 representations submitted by local residents. However, several key statutory bodies, including the Environment Agency, Natural England, Historic England, National Highways, the Canal and River Trust, the Health and Safety Executive, and the UK Health Security Agency, did not raise any objections to the scheme.

Councillor Graham Chapman, the sole dissenting voice in the recent vote, pointed to the lack of formal opposition from these agencies as a challenge in mounting a successful defense against the appeal. The committee agreed to delay formulating detailed grounds for contesting the application until its next meeting.

The local campaign group Save the Ancient Valley Environment (SAVE), which opposes the quarry, welcomed the council’s decision as aligning with the county council’s earlier refusal. The group indicated that although the appeal hearing date is yet to be confirmed, preparations are underway to coordinate responses with other interested parties.