Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99505

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Stopit2

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

M25. States “The site will need to be worked without dewatering, unless a Hydrogeological Impact Assessment identifies either no unacceptable hydrogeological impacts or appropriate mitigation is identified to ensure no acceptable impact to hydrogeology”; The site is the highest point in the village and in close proximity to dwellings. 6.44 states that “mineral development must also ensure that there will be no significant change in the ground water or surface water levels, including monitoring of dewatering operations to ensure no adverse impacts on surrounding water availability and/or the water environment”. The excavation will have an unspecified impact on the water tables of the dwellings in the village, which have already been materially impact by a combination of heavy rainfall and prolonged drought conditions. This is unsound and ineffective.

M25. S4.1 states that “Mineral development and Waste Management within Norfolk will be undertaken that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change”. The plan acknowledges that gravel extraction is climate heavy. MS08 states “to ensure that mineral development addresses and minimises the impacts it will have on climate change by minimising greenhouse gas emissions during the winning, working and handling of minerals, providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation where practicable, and integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adaption into the design and restoration and aftercare proposals”. Min 25 is particularly climate change heavy as the sand and gravel is quarried, which releases the 100% carbon, but only the gravel is required and transported to the Breedon Norton Subcourse Quarry. Additionally, the Breedon proposal is to return the land to the land owner for an unspecified use, this is inconsistent with a positive climate change aftercare proposal. This is unsound and ineffective.

Change suggested by respondent:

Drop Min 25 from the plan and refuse the Breedon planning application.

Attachments: