MIN 08 - land north of Stoney Lane, Beetley

The Parish Council agrees with the assessment for this site. The roads that would have to be used for this site are not suitable for HGVs, The Parish Council believes that a further site would be detrimental to the rural aspect at this point in the village.

Longwater Gravel has proposed that three of its mineral extraction sites, already adopted in the current Mineral Site-Specific Allocations DPD, should be included in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan review, these are:

* MIN 64 - Horstead (extension)
* MIN 45 - Coxford Abbey (extension)
* MIN 51 - Beetley (new greenfield site)

As the review seeks to extend the plan period by a further 10 years to 2036, Longwater Gravel initially proposed that an additional site should be considered for allocation, this is:

* MIN 13 - Beetley (now combined with MIN 51)

Since MIN 45 was proposed by Longwater Gravel to be retained as an adopted site in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, changes have been made to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in respect of the protection afforded to Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS). As part of MIN 45 is designated as a PAWS, this means that even though the woodland is a commercial conifer plantation, under the new NPPF, the PAWS designation now effectively prohibits mineral extraction. Due to this change, Norfolk County Council has concluded that MIN 45 is unsuitable for allocation and Longwater Gravel has reluctantly conceded that securing planning permission for MIN 45 is now very unlikely. Consequently, the lack of MIN 45 will result in the closure of Coxford Abbey Quarry by 2027.

Assuming that planning permission is granted for mineral extraction at MIN 51/MIN 13 and the site does become operational, as permitted mineral reserves at Coxford Abbey Quarry become exhausted, Longwater Gravel would seek to maintain continuity of sand and gravel supply to some of its existing customers from MIN 51/MIN 13. From 2027, production could potentially increase from 70,000 tonnes/year to 110,000 tonnes/year. As these sites would be extracted at a higher rate than previously planned, mineral reserves at MIN 51/MIN 13 could potentially be exhausted by 2033. This would mean that MIN 08, which Norfolk County Council has indicated would be planned as a future extension to MIN 51/MIN 13, would need to be worked during the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan period (2020-2036). The timescale for working the individual sites would be as follows:

* MIN 13: 2020 - 2027
* MIN 51: 2028 - 2032
* MIN 08: 2033 -

Longwater Gravel proposes that Norfolk County Council reconsiders its decision not to allocate MIN 08 and proposes that the site is combined with MIN 51/MIN 13 to create a new 1.85mt site. The site proposal form for MIN 08 will be resubmitted to show details of the new landowner and also to indicate Longwater Gravel as the mineral operator. A revised plan for MIN 08 showing the land owned by the Gressenhall Relief Charity excluded will also be submitted.

This response is on behalf of Gressenhall Poor Relief Charitable Trust whom own a parcel of land North of Stoney road East Bilney (MIN12; MIN13; MIN51 and MIN08.)

For the presence We strongly believe there is no need for yet another quarry in this area

Agree with the assessment of this site. I this site were allocated and the potential start date of 2020 realized there could potentially be 3 operational sites within a small area if MIN13/MIN51 and MIN12 are both allocated. The cumulative impact would be unacceptable. Access from the site would be on to Bilney Road which is not currently suitable for long term HGV use. Access to the B1146 would be at Rawhall Lane, again the preferred access point for the other mineral sites. This site should not be allocated.

We live at High House farm Bilney road Gressenhall and as such are some of the closest dwellings to Min08

We wish to confirm support for the views of the Parish Council as expressed below and specifically we object to Min 08, Min 51 and Min 13

3. We note that MIN12 is put forward by Middleton Aggregates as an extension to their existing operation which will take mineral back to their long established plant site due north of Gressenhall Village. We note that this has estimated minerals of well in excess of 1million tonnes and that this allocation will enable the Middleton Aggregates pit to continue to be served well beyond the plan period to 2036. As such we do not have an objection with this allocation.
4. MIN13 and MIN51 have been put forward by a different mineral operator on the basis that the new operator would need to establish its own plant on site.
5. Given that Middleton Aggregates are operating a pit immediately next door and mindful also of the existence of a second independent mineral operator namely McLeod Aggregates who are based approximately 2 miles away on the western side at Bittering, we see no case whatsoever for the introduction of a third operator in this location.
6. By definition there is plenty of competition in existence already with two operators able to service the local market and we see no case for that situation changing. Accordingly we object to the application of MIN13 and MIN51 within the Local Plan.
7. With regard to MIN13 and MIN51, we note the National Planning Practice Guidance which considers the circumstances under which it is appropriate for planning authorities to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than new sites.
This guidance goes on to identify the need for the mineral in the specific representation; the economic considerations; the positive and negative environmental impact; and accumulative impact of proposals in an area.
8. We consider that the NPP guidance as set out above therefore fully supports our contention that you should support MIN12 but reject MIN13 and MIN51.
9. Immediately due south of MIN13 and MIN51 is an allocation referred to as MIN08 which we understand has been put in by the landowner. This site does include land owned by the Gressenhall Poors Charity and the extent of the Charity's ownership is shown on the enclosed plan being towards the northern end of MIN08.
10. Gressenhall Poors Charity has made no representation to the Minerals Local Plan and no doubt the Trustees of that Charity will write and confirm this point to you.
11. Notwithstanding that point, we object strongly to the allocation of MIN08 in principle since it is wholly premature and far too close to the village of Gressenhall to be appropriate.
12. We question whether there is sufficient mineral within the field to justify extraction but in any event it is most certainly premature but it is also inappropriate mindful of its location.

Please find below the response to the Waste and Mineral Local Plan Consultation from Gressenhall Parish Council:

1. You have kindly drawn our attention to the consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
2. This response is on behalf of Gressenhall Parish Council whose interest is in MIN12; MIN13; MIN51 and MIN08.
3. We note that MIN12 is put forward by Middleton Aggregates as an extension to their existing operation which will take mineral back to their long established plant site due north of Gressenhall Village. We note that this has estimated minerals of well in excess of 1million tonnes and that this allocation will enable the Middleton Aggregates pit to continue to be served well beyond the plan period to 2036. As such we do not have an objection with this allocation.
4. MIN13 and MIN51 have been put forward by a different mineral operator on the basis that the new operator would need to establish its own plant on site.
5. Given that Middleton Aggregates are operating a pit immediately next door and mindful also of the existence of a second independent mineral operator namely McLeod Aggregates who are based approximately 2 miles away on the western side at Bittering, we see no case whatsoever for the introduction of a third operator in this location.
6. By definition there is plenty of competition in existence already with two operators able to service the local market and we see no case for that situation changing. Accordingly we object to the application of MIN13 and MIN51 within the Local Plan.
7. With regard to MIN13 and MIN51, we note the National Planning Practice Guidance which considers the circumstances under which it is appropriate for planning authorities to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than new sites.
This guidance goes on to identify the need for the mineral in the specific representation; the economic considerations; the positive and negative environmental impact; and accumulative impact of proposals in an area.
8. We consider that the NPP guidance as set out above therefore fully supports our contention that you should support MIN12 but reject MIN13 and MIN51.
9. Immediately due south of MIN13 and MIN51 is an allocation referred to as MIN08 which we understand has been put in by the landowner. This site does include land owned by the Gressenhall Poors Charity and the extent of the Charity's ownership is shown on the enclosed plan being towards the northern end of MIN08.
10. Gressenhall Poors Charity has made no representation to the Minerals Local Plan and no doubt the Trustees of that Charity will write and confirm this point to you.
11. Notwithstanding that point, we object strongly to the allocation of MIN08 in principle since it is wholly premature and far too close to the village of Gressenhall to be appropriate.
12. We question whether there is sufficient mineral within the field to justify extraction but in any event it is most certainly premature but it is also inappropriate mindful of its location.