MIN 203 - land north of Welcome Pit, Burgh Castle

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Support

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 93242

Received: 17/10/2019

Respondent: Folkes Plant & Aggregates Limited

Agent: Stephen M Daw Limited

Representation:

This Site is subject to a recently submitted planning application which has yet to be determined. Notwithstanding this, my Client would ask for the Site to be Allocated for the following reasons:
a) This is an extension to an existing quarry which has been in operation for several decades without attracting significant objection;
b) The quarry is uniquely well positioned to supply Sand and Gravel to the Great Yarmouth urban area together with surrounding towns and villages;
c) In pre-application discussions, the County Highways Authority has stated in writing they would raise no objection to an application subject to the suspension of 'Skip, Lorry and Plant Hire operations' for the life of the quarry operations;
d) In addition to the suspension of Skip, Lorry and Plant Hire operations, surfacing improvements at the site entrance, improved road markings, installation of a vehicle activated sign and imposition of a Lorry Management Plan concerning vehicle routing, all form part of the proposal;
e) The stated mineral reserve has been reduced from 280,000 to 200,000 tonnes which will be extracted at current rates of 15,000tpa over a period of 15 years, i.e. until end of 2034 and all within the Plan Period;
f) By not working some sharp Sand from beneath the water table, the proposed restoration scheme involves the formation of extensive reed beds. This combined with landscaping of graded marginal slopes and incorporation of exposed Sand banks for invertebrates and a mineral face for geological study, will result in significant biodiversity and geodiversity enhancements to the existing situation.

Full text:

This Site is subject to a recently submitted planning application which has yet to be determined. Notwithstanding this, my Client would ask for the Site to be Allocated for the following reasons:
a) This is an extension to an existing quarry which has been in operation for several decades without attracting significant objection;
b) The quarry is uniquely well positioned to supply Sand and Gravel to the Great Yarmouth urban area together with surrounding towns and villages;
c) In pre-application discussions, the County Highways Authority has stated in writing they would raise no objection to an application subject to the suspension of 'Skip, Lorry and Plant Hire operations' for the life of the quarry operations;
d) In addition to the suspension of Skip, Lorry and Plant Hire operations, surfacing improvements at the site entrance, improved road markings, installation of a vehicle activated sign and imposition of a Lorry Management Plan concerning vehicle routing, all form part of the proposal;
e) The stated mineral reserve has been reduced from 280,000 to 200,000 tonnes which will be extracted at current rates of 15,000tpa over a period of 15 years, i.e. until end of 2034 and all within the Plan Period;
f) By not working some sharp Sand from beneath the water table, the proposed restoration scheme involves the formation of extensive reed beds. This combined with landscaping of graded marginal slopes and incorporation of exposed Sand banks for invertebrates and a mineral face for geological study, will result in significant biodiversity and geodiversity enhancements to the existing situation.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98633

Received: 21/10/2019

Respondent: Great Yarmouth Borough Council

Representation:

The Council recognises that the allocation (an extension to the existing site) would be a local source of sand to potentially help supply new developments in the Borough (albeit that the annual extraction rate is low) and that having a site close by is helpful in terms of reducing miles travelled. However, the Council recognises the highways concerns identified by the County Council about the appropriateness of the surrounding road network and therefore agrees that the extension site should not be allocated as matters stand. That being said, if appropriate highways improvements could be delivered, the Council would be supportive of the extension being allocated.

It should be noted that the description of the location of the site in respect of Belton and Burgh Castle is incorrect in the amenity paragraph. The settlement of Burgh Castle is to the west, south and north of the site.

The Council's Environmental Services team has noted the following:
If this site was brought forward, contrary to the emerging Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, noise and dust assessments would be required in line with the pertinent PPG and NPPF, in order to design appropriate mitigation. Land contamination matters would have to be considered through a Phase I (desk study and site walkover) report, due to the potential for ground gas from filled pits.

Full text:

Thank you for consulting Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) on this document. Following consideration of the documentation, the Borough Council's response is set out below. This response was considered and endorsed by the Council's Policy and Resources Committee on the 15th October 2019:

Strategic vision and Objectives:
Comment: Support for the aims of the Strategic Vision and Objectives

Policy MW2-Development Management Criteria
Comment: The supporting text to the Policy doesn't explicitly reference 'all sources of flooding' just notes flood risk, GYBC would suggest that reference is made to all sources of flooding as well as reference to the Environment agency's flood mapping as well as the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments which have been produced across Norfolk. The supporting text should make clear that site specific flood risk assessments will be required where flood risk is identified within the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments.

Policy MW6 - Agricultural Soils
Comment: Parts of the Great Yarmouth Borough are classified as Grade 1 agricultural land. The need for development of land for housing and other uses mean that some of this land will be lost to development. The Council therefore supports this policy to minimise the loss of grade 1 agricultural land, when there are sufficient areas of lower grade agricultural land elsewhere in the County to accommodate minerals and waste developments.

Policy WP3 - Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities &
Policy WP6 -Transfer, storage, processing and treatment of hazardous waste
Comments: These policies set out a criteria based approach to waste development and hazardous waste. The criterion indicates that land in B2 (general industrial) or B8 (storage and distribution) use would be potentially suitable for waste development. It also indicates that waste development would be suitable on land allocated for B2 and B8 uses in Local Plans or other development plan documents.
Whilst the Council considers this a broadly acceptable approach, it has significant concerns with respect to two strategic employment areas within the Borough. It is considered that new generic waste development would not be suitable on the proposed Beacon Business Park extension or the existing Beacon Park Business Park and therefore strongly objects to the policy as currently drafted. It is also considered that new generic waste development would not be suitable within the identified Great Yarmouth port and harbour area. The Council's objectives for these sites are to promote businesses within the offshore energy and port related sectors. Generic waste developments in these areas would either be incompatible with these proposed uses or use land needed to create a cluster of these proposed uses. The strategic significance of these sites is also recognised through the Enterprise Zone status of Beacon Business Park and its extension, and the wider area associated with the outer harbour.
The Council therefore requests that an exception is made to this policy for the above employment areas. The Council recognises that there may be some waste operations which can be associated with port and offshore energy/engineering activities which could be more compatible in principle (for example, some kinds of decommissioning). The Council would welcome the opportunity to discuss how the policy could be redrafted to best support the strategic aims of these employment areas within the Borough.
The extent of the above areas can be seen in the August 2018 Local Part 2 consultation document. Beacon Park Business Park is defined in emerging policy GN4-dp. The Beacon Park extension is defined in emerging policy GN5-dp. The Great Yarmouth Port and Harbour area is defined in policy GY12-dp

Policy MP1 - Prevision for minerals extraction
Comments: Given that the plan will allocate sufficient land to meet forecasted need, the Council supports this policy to resist proposals for Mineral extraction sites for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites.

Site MIN 203 - Land North of Welcome Pit, Burgh Castle
Comments: The Council recognises that the allocation (an extension to the existing site) would be a local source of sand to potentially help supply new developments in the Borough (albeit that the annual extraction rate is low) and that having a site close by is helpful in terms of reducing miles travelled. However, the Council recognises the highways concerns identified by the County Council about the appropriateness of the surrounding road network and therefore agrees that the extension site should not be allocated as matters stand. That being said, if appropriate highways improvements could be delivered, the Council would be supportive of the extension being allocated.
It should be noted that the description of the location of the site in respect of Belton and Burgh Castle is incorrect in the amenity paragraph. The settlement of Burgh Castle is to the west, south and north of the site.
The Council's Environmental Services team has noted the following:
If this site was brought forward, contrary to the emerging Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, noise and dust assessments would be required in line with the pertinent PPG and NPPF, in order to design appropriate mitigation. Land contamination matters would have to be considered through a Phase I (desk study and site walkover) report, due to the potential for ground gas from filled pits.

Site MIN 38 - Land at Waveney Forest
Comment: The Council supports the conclusion that this site should not be allocated. The Council considers that the forest whilst not open-access, does serve as an important recreational asset to the Borough given the public rights of way around and within the site. It is also worth noting that saved policy REC11 identifies an area of recreation space to the east of the site which is not mentioned in the assessment. Therefore, the recreational value of the site should be given greater weight in the assessment.
The Council's Environmental Services team has noted the following:
If this site was brought forward, contrary to the emerging Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, noise and dust assessments would be required in line with the pertinent PPG and NPPF, in order to design appropriate mitigation. Land contamination matters would have to be considered through a Phase I (desk study and site walkover) report, due to the historic military and railways land uses.