Object

Representation ID: 99506

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Stopit2

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

MP1 states that the shortfall of 12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix 1), so the Haddiscoe site (MIN 25) could be removed altogether and there would still be an excess of 1.5m tonnes (15.4m – 1.3m= 14.1m less 12.6m), assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology would further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

M25. The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation on the 16.06.22 estimated that the Haddiscoe site will only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. We would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe site entirely. This is unsound and not justified.