MIN 213 - land at Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless

We are writing to strongly object to the above plan.
As we live directly opposite the Mansom Plantation and have done so for the last 36 years and within 100 metres of the site boundary we were surprised to find out about the proposed mineral and waste plan from a neighbour.
We chose to live in the countryside for a tranquil and peaceful life and at no point did we envisaged living opposite a dusty, noisy and unsightly gravel pit. There will be air pollution and noise pollution from extracting the sand and gravel from the site which may also contain a processing plant. The screening is totally insufficient so we will also have an unsightly view not to mention a huge increase in HGV traffic coming and going from the site, this just an utterly intolerable proposition. Mansom Plantation should not be used for this purpose out of respect for the residents who live on top of it. Personally we will be absolutely devastated if this plan goes ahead. With this plan our own back garden will no longer be a peaceful haven to sit in that we enjoy at the moment.
At present there is permission for a holiday lodge park which is subject to a 25 year landscape and management plan which is far more in keeping with countryside living. We have read in the proposal that the site could be returned to a state where it could then be made into a holiday park afterwards, personally we find that very hard to believe after extracting 1,000,000 tonnes of minerals!
There are several factors that should be taken into consideration:
. The well being of the village residents that live in close proximity.
. The extra traffic it will create and mainly HGV vehicles daily.
. There is definitely insufficient screening proposed to eliminate the site, sound and dust that will inevitably be created.
. There will be mass disruption to wildlife that live there and their habitats.
. There are protected species that live in there a huge bat population and Great Crested Newts. It is very important for the local deer who live and cross through this woodland.
. There is also an ancient woodland to the north of the site that needs protecting.
. There has to be devastation to trees, which under the Lodge Park proposal need to be managed and protected for the next 25 years.
We must trust that you will take our health and well being into account when making your decision

I am a resident of Stratton Strawless and I wish to OBJECT to the proposal for a sand and gravel extraction site at Mansom Plantation. It will destroy trees and wildlife habitat at a time when it is essential that we preserve our natural environment. It is madness to destroy the things we need for our survival as a species, simply to take from the earth material which will no doubt be used for building roads and thereby contribute to the global threat to our whole planet. We have to understand that only by doing the right thing at a local level will we protect the earth for our children. These decisions might seem insignificant to a local council, but it is on the basis of decisions like these that our children and grandchildren will judge us: did we choose to act to protect the natural world, or did we sell it out?

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options - Mansom Plantation, Stratton
Strawless - MIN 213
As a Business owner and resident of Stratton Strawless I wish to OBJECT to the above proposed minerals and waste extraction site on the following grounds .
. The extraction site will be located within the centre of the parish and therefore impact on the Parish as a whole.
. Mansom Plantation is a habitat for a variety of wildlife, including great crested newts and a migratory route for deer. It is likely that these habitats will be destroyed. The countryside should be protected for future generations to enjoy.
. The excavation and processing plants will generate dust and high levels of noise pollution. This could be detrimental to resident's health.
.The character of the Parish would be affected for a long time to come .
. Ponds on the site should be protected, it is likely that the water table will be affected by the extraction.
. Planning permission has already been granted for a holiday lodge park on the site and a landscape plan to protect trees exists as part of this permission.
. The increased traffic flow onto the extremely busy A140 is a great worry, what with all the building work to the North of Hevingham, causing extra traffic during construction and potentially even more traffic flow when properties get occupied. The A140 is currently overloaded, with access to the A140 from Parish Road and Shorthorn Road being extremely difficult.
The estimated 76 vehicle movements a day will affect not only residents but existing Businesses, as Customers and Staff will find it even more difficult to gain access to the A140.
The above points highlight the concerns of Stratton Strawless residents, and should be taken into consideration when deciding on the location of a minerals and waste extraction site in Norfolk.

MIN 213- MANSOM PLANTATION
My wife and I wish to register our objection to NCC's support of the proposed development of Mansom Plantation for aggregate excavation by "CEMEX".

Devastation
At no point does NCC highlight the extreme damage that will be caused to the site, which lies in the centre of our village.
The extant planning permission for the 98 lodges was granted at appeal with emphasis placed on the environmental statement and plan for the development. Should CEMEX be granted permission the site will be totally destroyed and NCC, whilst stating the site will be restored, have clearly not made any reference to the approved plan. Restoration will not be achieved in less than 60 years after cessation of excavation.
The ancient habitat and tracks of the wildlife will be lost, leading to more unnecessary upset and road kill.
Whilst NCC state that the 76 lorries will turn left to the A140 they will not be able to enforce such action and the drivers will travel the shortest route which in turn, will create more danger along Shortthorn Road and at the junctions with the Cromer and Holt Road.
The proposed 60 metre screening will not isolate the local residents from the works, who will have to tolerate noise, dust and the effect that the dust has on life.
Where will the fill come from to enable the restoration? We would suggest that the value of good fill will be similar to that of the excavated material.

Alternative Aggregate Suppliers
Within our local area there are three which are working with all necessary infrastructure that may be extended, whilst there are two others deemed suitable. Of the last two, MIN202 is controlled by CEMEX.
We feel the disturbance to local traffic by the foregoing plants is minimal, due to the locations of the sites, away from village centres.
As there are adequate existing facilities to meet forthcoming need, one questions NCC's enthusiasm for Mansom Plantation.

Conclusion
We object to the use of Mansom Plantation for aggregate because:
1. It is situated in the centre of our village.
2. The site will be totally decimated for years.
3. There are adequate local suppliers existing, questioning the need.
4. The loss of many trees, some of which are substantial and will not be replaced.
5. The increase in traffic along a road without footpaths.
6. Danger to wildlife.
7. The unacceptable impact on the immediate local residents.
8. The unacceptable noise and visual impact to all travelling along the A140 Cromer Road.
Finally, we conclude that there is nothing that can be said in favour of the proposal and we therefore reaffirm our OBJECTION and urge the decision makers to fully appreciate the enormity of their responsibility.

Your Ref: M&WLPRP02019 Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan
Dear Sirs, I am contacting you to register my objection to the proposed mineral extraction site at Mansom Plantation, Shortthorn Road, Stratton Strawless.
I am of the opinion that it will have a massive detrimental effect to the ecology and environmental balance of the site and surrounding area. Local ponds to the East of the proposed site struggle to fill now, and appear to be filled by a combination of groundwater and surface water. The proposed site to the west ,(where the groundwater comes from), of the ponds will almost certainly lower local groundwater levels and impact on the ponds ability to fill. Any impact on the water quality will lead to degradation of water plants and water creatures. The gravel is at a depth of 18- 22 ft and is between 1 - 2 ft thick. Water level is around 14 ft so excavations will be 4 - 6 ft below water level which is impossible without pumping, and I informed that pumping is not permitted on this site.
This development will destroy trees , wildlife and fauna. Destruction of habitat will increase roadkill and lead to even more accidents on the A140. The government is committed to planting 11 million trees by 2022 to tackle climate change , not destroy them. The buffer/screening area is insufficient to screen for 6 months of the year when the trees are bare of leaves and the proposed will then be clearly visible from the A140. Also, during the autumn/winter period lighting of the site will, no doubt, be required and presumably will be visible from the A140 and surrounding houses.
There is an existing large saw mill/wood yard very close to the site which produces a lot of noise from vehicles and machinery and heavy lorries turning from the A140 into the site. The heavy lorries from the proposed site will have to exit onto Shorthorn Road and damage road surface and then join the A140 at a crossroads which is the centre of the village and currently a nightmare to cross. Also the proposed site would increase the current incessant noise from traffic/saw mill to local residents.
Very close to the north of the proposed site is a very popular footpath/walk through woods with parking area and used by many walkers/dog walkers. What would be the effect on this amenity? With the increase of housebuilding in local villages and Norwich suburbs these areas are a valuable asset to the county.
I also feel that a full archaelogical survey should be conducted as there is the possibility of Roman remains in the area.
Finally, are there proposed plans for the site after the Mineral extraction has been exhausted?
Surely there are more suitable sites for mineral extraction in Norfolk.

Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless - MIN - 213
Although I am not a resident, I have close ties with the parish of Stratton Strawless and I strongly OBJECT to Norfolk County Council's proposed use of Mansom Plantation, Shortthorn Road as one of their preferred sites for the extraction of sand and gravel as per their Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
I OBJECT on the grounds of both the environmental and safety impacts of this proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
* The Earth is already in crisis. I refer to the Friends of the Earth report that was published on the 8th of October and their recommendations which were based upon the performance of every council in the country. Catherine Rowett, a Green Party Member of the European Parliament said, "This assessment from Friends of the Earth shows that authorities at all levels have to seriously step up their efforts if we are to stand the remotest chance of leaving a safe world for our children. We have very little time left to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown. Many of the solutions are readily available with little effort and we need to embark on implementing those changes without delay." One of the recommendations being more trees - not as being proposed cutting down approximately 50 acres of woodland! https:// norwich.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/10/08/more-trees,-warmer-homes,-fewer-cars-what-greater-norwich-needs-to-tackle-climate-emergency/
* Mansom Plantation is currently the home to a variety of wildlife, including the Great Crested Newt and it's also a migrating route for deer. Our countryside should be protected, and I feel disgusted with the proposal to destroy these wildlife habitats.
* The excavation and processing plants will generate high levels of noise and dust pollution.
* The existing ponds within this site should be protected and it's highly likely that the water table will be affected by extraction.
* Planning permission has already been granted for a holiday lodge park on the site and its landscape plan to protect trees exists as a part of this permission.
SAFETY:
* It has been predicted that a site such as this would increase traffic movements by 76 vehicles a day. Not only does this increase levels of pollution to the residents of Shortthorn Road, my greatest fear is of a fatality/serious injury. Being a frequent visitor to Stratton Strawless, I am fully aware that the pulling put from Shortthorn Road onto the A140 is a dangerous junction at ANY time of the day. I predict that it will only be a matter of time before one of these slow-moving lorries pulls out and causes serious injury/ a fatality. It was only a few weeks back in the summer of 2019 that someone had to be air-lifted for medical treatment following a traffic incident at this very junction.
Please support my objections to prevent further environmental impacts of the Earth with the widespread destruction of Mansom Plantation.

In reply to your letter dated 13th September, we absolutely object to your proposal to excavate sand and gravel at Mansom Plantation.
Our property is located just metres away from the western boundary of the site, where we have lived for nearly 60 years.
When we first came here, the trees were very small and had been planted on what had previously been heathland. Whilst we understand the trees were planted as a crop, over the years they have added to the rural woodland landscape of the area and the plantation provides habitats for a variety of wildlife. This is why we chose to live in the countryside and it is very important to our way of life.
How you can describe this particular site as a "Preferred Option" when there are private dwellings located so close to its boundaries is beyond all understanding. We spend the majority of our time at home. If this proposal is granted permission it will result in constant noise and disturbance and will no doubt also require the site to be floodlit. Residents living close to its boundaries will have to endure this over at least an eight year period. The value of our home will be greatly affected.
The traffic along Shortthorn Road has already increased significantly, particularly commercial vehicles using it to get to the NDR. There is an estimated 76 daily highway movements to and from the site when in operation. They may also prefer to come along Shortthorn Road to reach the NDR. The Junction with the A140 is already so busy that at peak times, it is very difficult to get out of Shortthorn Road. The increase in traffic will present a further hazard.
The number of residential properties along Shortthorn Road has increased in the last few years. Mansom Plantation isn't on the edge of the village, away from people's homes. It is in the centre of the village.
It makes no sense at all to propose this when permission has already been granted for a holiday lodge park with a Landscape Management Plan and S106 Agreement. It will take decades for any restoration to take place.
The processing plant which we presume is for separating the aggregates will be horribly noisy and will also create dust, debris and silt which will travel on the air and into ponds and water courses. Hevingham Park is located behind Mansom Plantation. It may be put at risk by the operation.
Should this proposal reach planning and be granted permission it will entirely spoil our enjoyment in our home.

I am writing to protest at the proposed gravel extraction at Manson Plantation, Shortthorn Road, for the following environmental and community disruption reasons such a proposal will bring:-
1) Shortthorn Road is not suitable for heavy construction vehicles. Those few large lorries directed down Shortthorn Road by Sat-Nav devices cause damage to property by encroaching, by necessity, on gardens fronting the road (some persons have put barriers up in the futile attempt to stop it) when such lorries confront each other in opposite directions.
2) Manson Plantation is a known route for the large herd of deer that travel from Serpentine Lane through the wood onto Manson Plantation, which of course houses its own large herd of deer. In a time of world wide concern for animals and the environment in particular, it would seem incongruous for Norfolk County Council to add, quite considerably, to that concern.
3) Just recently the community has objected to the site chosen by N.C.C for encampment of Caravans on Shortthorn Rd . Quite a large number of objections were recorded by the Planning Dept. however, it was passed by the Council, despite the level of objection. Therefore local representation does not seem to count for very much.
Should this ill conceived proposal go through for whatever reason it will demonstrate yet again that local democracy doesn't work and I would contend that given the recent decisions made by N.C.C regarding Shortthorn Road would form the legitimate basis for a community complaint to the Local Authority Ombudsman.
Would you please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thankyou.

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options - Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless - MIN 213
As a resident of Stratton Strawless I wish to OBJECT to the above proposed minerals and waste extraction site on the following grounds.
* The extraction site will be located within the centre of the parish, and therefore impact on the parish as a whole.
* Mansom Plantation is a habitat for a variety of wildlife, including great crested newts and a migratory route for deer. It is likely that these habitats will be destroyed. The countryside should be protected.
* The excavation and processing plants will generate dust and high levels of noise pollution.
* The estimated 76 vehicle movements a day will increase traffic flow onto A140, and be detrimental to residents health.
* The character of the Parish would be affected for a long time to come.
* Ponds on the site should be protected, it is likely that the water table will be affected by the extraction.
* Planning permission has already been granted for a holiday lodge park on the site and a landscape plan to protect tress exists as part of this permission.
The above points highlight the concerns of Stratton Strawless residents, and should be taken into consideration when deciding on the location of a minerals and waste extraction site in Norfolk.
We also need urgent action about the speed and weight of vehicles now using Short Thorn Rd, a lot of them sent by satnav as a short cut. This road has also become a terrible rat run and quite dangerous. We need a weight limit and for the speed to be reduced to 30mph.

Extraction of Minerals at Manson Plantation. Shortthorn Road. Stratton Strawless.

I am writing to you on behalf of my wife and I regarding information received from the Parish Council on the proposal to extract sand and gravel from Manson Plantation by Cemex. Norfolk County Council has proposed that site as one of their Preferred Options under their Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, but it appears to us they do not seem to have understood the extreme adverse implications such a vast undertaking, covering some 50 acres, would have on the area.

The whole area, including Manson Plantation, has a natural and rural eco-system and the environment as a whole supports a variety of wildlife. The Planning Permission already granted for a holiday lodge park on the site including a landscape plan seems quite acceptable, but the proposal for extraction of sand and gravel over such a large area and time scale, (may be more than 8 years to complete), is NOT acceptable to us. The following are comments we wish to make as to the likely effects the proposal could have on the area:

(1) Shortthorn Road is not a very wide road and the estimated heavy lorry movements of 76 per day, which could go in either direction, would result in a lot of traffic which the road was not designed to take.
(2) The noise nuisance factor from the site itself and also from the lorries would be a disturbance not only to the residents living near the site but also to the variety of wildlife which would also have its habitat devastated, most likely for all time.
(3) We consider the buffer/screening belt of approximately 60 metres would not be wide enough to mask the processes on the site.
(4) We are not yet aware of any plans to sympathetically return the site to a landscaped area after all the extraction has finished. If any such remedial work takes place it would not satisfactorily replace the long-established existing stable and natural environment
My wife and I feel that the devastation caused by the proposal should not be allowed to happen.

I WRITE TO REGISTER MY REASONS FOR OPOSALL AS LISTED BELOW INCREASED NOISE INCREASED HEAVY TRAFFIC AND FUMES INCREASED LOSS OF OXYGINATING TREES AND PLANTLIFE INCREASED LOSS OF WILDLIFE THE SITE IS GEOGRAPHICALLY THE CENTER OF OUR VILLAGE AND POPULATED AREA WHAT WILL THE FUTURE BRING POSSIBLY A LANDFILL SITE ? NO THANK YOU

Whilst Neighbourhood Plans do not deal with Minerals and Waste matters directly, it is important to note that several of the proposed sites are within areas that have emerging neighbourhood plans. The final content of those plans are not yet known to establish if there is any conflict between the sites identified, but it is worth noting that the following sites are affected by this;

MIN 37 - land east of Coltishall Road, Buxton
MIN 64 - land at Grange Farm, Buxton Road, Horstead
MIN 96 - land at Grange Farm, between Spixworth Road and Coltishall Lane, Spixworth

I also note that MIN 213 - land at Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless is adjacent to Hevingham Park Project 8 in West Broadland GI Project Plan. If this project is carried out then there may prove to be a conflict in relation to increased traffic and activity in this area.

Given the points made above, the production of the Minerals and Waste Plan should have due regard to emerging Neighbourhood Plans within the district.

As a resident of Stratton Strawless I wish to OBJECT to the above proposed minerals and waste extraction site on the following grounds.
* The extraction site will be located within the centre of the parish, and therefore impact on the parish as a whole.
* Mansom Plantation is a habitat for a variety of wildlife, including great crested newts and a migratory route for deer. It is likely that these habitats will be destroyed. The countryside should be protected.
* The excavation and processing plants will generate dust and high levels of noise pollution.
* The estimated 76 vehicle movements a day will increase traffic flow onto A140, and be detrimental to residents health. Shortthorn Road already has enough lorries up and down it with a width issue in various places causing vehicles to mount the kerb and peoples driveways. Loaded Aggregate lorries pulling out onto A140 will bring a serious safety issue because of their slow acceleration. Its a very busy junction at peak times.
* The character of the Parish would be affected for a long time to come.
* Ponds on the site should be protected, it is likely that the water table will be affected by the extraction.
* Planning permission has already been granted for a holiday lodge park on the site and a landscape plan to protect tress exists as part of this permission.
* The buffer/screening area will be insufficient to shield the site from view in the Autumn/Winter.
* This plan needs to be sited somewhere else where its appropriate to its location. Definitely not in Stratton Strawless.

As a resident of Stratton Strawless I wish to object to the above proposed mineral and waste extraction site on the following grounds.
The impact that this would have on the local area would be extremely damaging, the Manson Plantation is a habitat for a variety of wildlife, including great crested newts and deer, their habitat would be devastated. In a time when we should be protecting our environment not destroying it, this proposal is outrageous.
The additional vehicle movements would add to the traffic flow onto the A140 on an already busy and increasingly dangerous junction which already has a history of accidents.
Not only do I feel that this proposal would have an extremely negative impact on our parish it would also have a negative effect on the environment.
We will not just acquiesce and watch as our planet is taken apart for profit. Planning permission has already been granted for a lodge park on the site which includes plans to protect trees as part of that permission.

The village already suffers noise from excessive lorry traffic relating to businesses on this road already including traffic that isn't monitored by you that should not use this end of Shortthorn Road ie: Thompson Sawmills

Exiting Shortthorn Road now is already a problem particularly at rush hour. This is partly due to over development in Aylsham and no traffic lights between Aylsham and Stratton Strawless and with the additional many hundreds of new homes in this area the road network currently is unable to meet demands. This proposal is suggesting there will be at least 70 lorries a day exiting and entering this site. In addition the noise factor from the proposed processing plant will make our lives unbearable.

it will also have significant impact on the draining of the ground in relation to our property and local farms.

This area is known for its natural habitat and indeed has been sited as the reason that many properties have been unable to obtain planning for extensions or alterations on this road.

How can this be a considered proposal when it is potentially going to devastate the centre of the village.

When so much consideration is given to great crested newts and other wildlife it is time that human beings are afforded the same level of protection. How can the business interests of an absentee landowner over ride the quality of life of residents who live in this English village.

This matter is so serious to us all in this village that you have not allowed us enough time for research this proposal and to under the real impact.

You have been aware of this for a very long time and I do wonder if this is a deliberate matter on your part.

As a resident of Woodland View in Stratton Strawless I am horrified at the proposal for gravel and sand extraction from our lovely local woods. Not only would it be awful to destroy the woodland, it would make our lives here noisy and the traffic on the main A.140 so much worse.

At present we have great difficulty crossing this road to get to the bus stop on the other side. This pedestrian crossing is at present very dangerous especially as a large proportion of our residents are retired and quite a number in their eighties!

I have been living here for over 30 years and my present peaceful life here would be considerably affected by this proposal. I strongly object to it from every point of view.

We do not agree with the propose extraction of sand and gravel from shorthorn road do to the amount of noise and traffic in the area and the disturbance to wildlife

In response to your letter dated 13th September, we are appalled to discover that Mansom Plantation in Stratton Strawless is proposed as a preferred option site for the removal of sand and gravel. It has not been included in the 2018 initial consultation document. We live opposite the site and we absolutely object to it.
We request that the following comments are carefully and seriously considered.

* The site is too close to residential properties and it will destroy the rural nature of the area.
* The excavation and processing plant will create constant high levels of noise nuisance and pollution to be endured over an eight year period, perhaps longer. It does not say if it will also require flood lights.
* It will seriously disturb and disrupt a variety of wildlife and destroy their habitats. Mansom Plantation is a migratory route for deer, to neighbouring woodlands to the north and opposite the site.
* The estimated 76 movements of heavy vehicles per day entering and leaving the site will greatly increase the traffic trying to access the very busy A140. There is little to prevent them coming along Shortthorn Road, which would be intolerable.

There is an existing consent for a holiday lodge park, (20041641), which is subject to conditions, (S106 agreement 5.12.06). This includes a 25 year Landscape Management Plan (Dec 2007). We request that you refer to these documents and item 4.8.2 (1 to 5), relating to ponds and watercourses: "Protect the small colony of Great Crested Newts and the breeding ground and enhance their habitat and refuge".

An application to use this site for construction plant training in the area where the lodges are to be constructed is awaiting a decision, (20190448). Please read the Tree Officer's comments relating to retained tree groups and the arboriculture assessment. If mineral extraction is allowed, an area of over 20 hectares will be totally destroyed.

The committee members have commented over the distance from the proposed sites of 250 metres. See Meeting Minutes item 11.4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review - Preferred Options Consultation, "Members were concerned that the consultation distance of 250 metres was not far reaching enough especially when some of the proposed sites are in locations which had not experienced anything similar before. The sites had the potential to affect whole communities, some of which are further away than 250 metres from the proposed site". We agree that this is an insufficient distance from the sites to residential properties.

The site characteristics document says: MIN 213 would be likely to contain a processing plant, which the sand and gravel would be transported to by internal haul route. We assume the sand and gravel must be worked "wet" without dewatering, by using a natural watercourse on site and then grading the material. The site has ancient woodland and Hevingham Park is adjacent to it. This CWS is a very important local amenity. The Hydrogeology may be affected by the extraction process. The outfalls of watercourses that run off the north side of Mansom Plantation under the Hevingham Park roadway in 3 places are likely to run dry due to the extraction of aggregates. These watercourses eventually come together and run into the River Bure at Buxton. During the increasingly hot, dry spells we now experience, there is the potential to create harsh drought conditions for trees, ponds and wildlife.

The conifer plantation along the Shortthorn Road boundary of the site, which is said to provide screening, is inadequate, particularly during the autumn/ winter. The operation is likely to be visible and audible, due to the harvesting for timber on the perimeter in the last few years resulting in thinned areas with a lack of undergrowth.

We stress in the strongest terms, the detrimental effect approving this proposal will have on our home and that of our neighbours and how it will spoil our enjoyment in living here.

Mansom Plantation contributes greatly to the rural character of the parish of Stratton Strawless.

We wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposal that the Mansom Plantation in Stratton Strawless be used as a site for the extraction of sand and gravel.
The proposed location is not even on the edge of the village but is slap-bang in the middle - a fact which often gets forgotten, the village being bisected by the A140.
A number of local residents have up many hours of their time over the last two years to run Speedwatch checks on Shortthorn Road in the attempt to make this community a quieter, safer place to live. An increase in heavy vehicles would undo all of this hard work. The junction of Shortthorn Road with the A140 is bad enough at times so an additional 76 vehicle movements on these roads would further complicate the situation. As it is, we already have to tolerate the articulated lorries moving to and from Thomson Sawmills, when residents were assured that they would seek to use the Holt Road.
There would be constant noise nuisance created by the extraction and processing machinery, particularly for those living close to the boundaries of the site. The land would be devastated by the excavation of the said minerals, and there would be disturbance to a variety of local wildlife and the destruction of their habitat.
Stratton Strawless, as a non-sustainable village, has precious few amenities. Many of the residents choose to live here on account of the peace and quiet afforded by this location. If the proposal was to proceed, then how might this impact on the value of property in its vicinity?
When Planning Permission was granted for the holiday lodge park, it was proposed that pathways be created through the afforested area to link up with the 'Village Green', an area of common land that has yet to be developed. Is this still the case? As a part of that permission, there was a landscape plan to protect the existing trees which should surely be upheld.
We strongly urge the planners to reconsider this proposal and look elsewhere for their minerals.

I wish to object to NCCs decision to support gravel and sand extraction on the Mansom Plantation. As you know the area is in the centre of our village with Hevingham close by to the north and Hainford close by to the south, ie surrounded by houses.
LOCAL NUISANCE
It is inappropriate to introduce a very noisy industrial element and increased traffic to a quiet residential area so close to Norwich. The local population will not be happy with the councils decision.
INCREASED ACCIDENT DANGER
We all know how frustrating it is when, attempting to cross a busy road, a panel van pulls up alongside obliterating the view. If the estimated 76 highway movements are between 8am and 5pm, it means every 15 minutes a large gravel lorry will draw up alongside someone in order to access the already very busy A140, far worse than a panel van. Even worse for the elderly drivers and cyclists wishing to get round our village.
INTERFERENCE WITH NATURAL WATER FLOW
The soil structure in that area is notoriously complex with several streams and springs along with a combination of siliceous (sometimes perched) and calcareous aquifers with unpredictable permeability and porosity. Interference through dewatering and subsequent aquifer removal will affect both the chemical quality and water availability for both nearby abstractions and spring fed hydrology. Modelling the flow of water through the unsaturated zone is unreliable without extensive baseline monitoring - especially when the gravel extraction requires the removal of so many trees. This will also reduce the natural resilience to both floods and droughts. Has the environmental impact assessment collected sufficient data over a long enough period to be confident these impacts are adequately characterized? I would suggest many independent geologists would find this easy to challenge at an ENQUIRY and a precautionary approach should be taken that avoids gravel extraction beneath the water table where there are nearby water features and abstractors. I gather that existing licence holders MAY SUE if their water supply is harmed.
I have a licence in perpetuity for 54,000 cu. m. per annum which is essential to my farm, and I would not hesitate to take action if my flow was compromised.
DEVASTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The Mansom Plantation is part of a 6 mile belt of woodland running from the A1067 to the A140 and beyond, which provides green lungs for north Norwich and a safe refuge and corridor for diverse wildlife. The jewel in the crown is the colony of GREAT CRESTED NEWTS, which has been identified here by an ecologist. Im sure you are aware of the new Norfolk Pond Project pioneered by Carl Sayer of London University in conjunction with my brother in law Richard Waddingham of Manor Farm Briston, also NWT and FWAG. Richard spent 20 years tending the 40 ponds on his farm before he found great crested newts had moved in, to great excitement.
IN CONCLUSION
I cant see any good reason for the NCC to allow such a special site to be plundered and the lives if the many residents ruined just for the private gain of one company.
The popular feeling at the moment is the preservation of the environment and green spaces and I feel this site deserves the NCCs protection.

Although I am not a resident, I have close ties with the Parish of Stratton Strawless and I strongly OBJECT to Norfolk County Council's proposed use of Mansom Plantation, Shortthorn Road as one of their preferred sites for the extraction of sand and gravel as per their Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

I OBJECT on the grounds of both the environmental and safety impacts of this proposal.

ENVIRONMENTAL:
* The Earth is already in crisis. I refer to the Friends of the Earth report that was published on the 8th October and their recommendations which were based upon the performance of every Council in the country. Catherine Rowett, a Green Party Member of the European Parliament said, "This assessment from Friends of the Earth shows that Authorities at all levels have to seriously step up their efforts if we are to stand the remotest chance of leaving a safe world for our children. We have very little time left to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown. Many of the solutions are readily available with little effort and we need to embark on implementing those changes without delay." One of the recommendations being more trees - not as being proposed cutting down approximately 50 acres of woodland! https://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/10/08/more-trees,-warmer-homes,-fewer-cars-what-greater-norwich-needs-to-tackle-climate-emergency/

* Mansom Plantation is currently the home to a variety of wildlife, including the Great Crested Newt and it's also a migrating route for deer. Our countryside should be protected, and I feel disgusted with the proposal to destroy these wildlife habitats.

* The excavation and processing plants will generate high levels of noise and dust pollution.
* The existing ponds within this site should be protected and it's highly likely that the water table will be affected by extraction.
* Planning permission has already been granted for a holiday lodge park on the site and its landscape plan to protect trees exists as a part of this permission.

SAFETY:
* It has been predicted that a site such as this would increase traffic movements by 76 vehicles a day. Not only does this increase levels of pollution to the residents of Shortthorn Road, my greatest fear is of a fatality/serious injury. Being a frequent visitor to Stratton Strawless, I am fully aware that the pulling out from Shortthorn Road onto the A140 is a dangerous junction at ANY time of the day. I predict that it will only be a matter of time before one of these slow-moving lorries pulls out and causes serious injury/ a fatality. It was only a few weeks back in the summer of 2019 that someone had to be air-lifted for medical treatment following a traffic incident at this very junction.

Please support my objections to prevent further environmental impacts of the Earth with the widespread destruction of Mansom Plantation.

Gravel Extraction and Tree Removal. Shortthorn Road, Stratton Strawless.
We are asking all those in authority to reject this proposal. There are many reasons, but mainly because we live here. It's not in the middle of nowhere, nor is it on an industrial site. It is our home.
These are the reasons why we implore you to reject this.
* The whole nature of Stratton Strawless will be changed.
* Cutting down so many trees, which incidentally are protected in our gardens, can cause soil to erode, worsen flooding and destroy natural habitats for wildlife. It's become a serious problem throughout the globe. Climate change is serious, we must act now for the people of the future. 20.3 hectares of devastation is immense, with long lasting consequences.
* The increased volume of traffic on and around Shortthorn Road is detrimental to all our physical and mental health. Already the speed of cars and lorries on Shortthorn Road well exceeds the 40mph. Speeds of over 50mph are regularly witnessed by the Speedwatch team and speeds over 65mph are not unusual.
* The noise pollution of lorries, empty and full is already horrendous, we can't cope with increased traffic. The decibels of the traffic exceed safety levels. The road surface is terrible, it's bumpy and of poor quality. There is no noise prevention surface. The road floods, especially on the uneven parts and great sprays of water are send over gardens, cyclists and pedestrians. The noise of gravel extraction is another major consideration. During the colder months, this will be even worse as the screening area loses leaf coverage.
* There are no pavements on Shortthorn Road, and hardly any of the sides are edged. Lorries already drive in the grass verges and an increase in traffic will exacerbate this problem. Walkers and cyclists are very brave to even walk on the road. A possible 75 movements per day of lorries travelling to and from the site is a major increase in traffic.
* The junction at the A140 and also on the Holt Road are accident black spots. Accidents have happened and an increase in traffic will cause more. Accidents have been fatal. It's not unusual to see ambulances, police and fire engines in attendance. Please don't make this worse. 28 child pedestrians were killed and 1,276 seriously injured last year in urban areas.
It's time to remember that Stratton Strawless is a place for people, not just vehicles.
* We are in a residential area. Most older businesses respect this. However, we've seen a recent surge in businesses flouting the law. We do not need more industry, especially on this scale.
* House prices may fall as a result of this. People won't be able to sell within several miles. The housing market relies on buying and selling and young people will not be able to find housing.
From a personal point. We are not Nimbies, we support our business partners. We own and run a small self catering cottage. Guests come for peace and tranquility. This brings income into the locality, especially the local pubs and restaurants. This runs the whole year round. A gravel pit is not on a list of things that people come to Norfolk to see. Norfolk is a tourist destination for thousands of people each year and that includes Stratton Strawless. I'm not sure our business will survive a gravel pit in our road. Valuable revenue will be lost by all. How can we sit in our gardens with gravel pit and lorries increasing the Environmental pollution?
We urge our parish council and Broadland Council to reject this proposal. Stopping this will not be driven not from the top, but it is the actions of individual members of the public, councils and professionals who see that when public and residential spaces are less dominated by vehicles and industry then they become better for all.

I am writing to you on behalf of Stratton Strawless Parish Council regarding the Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan (NMWLP) preferred options consultation, reference MIN 213 Mansom Plantation, Shortthorn Road.
The Parish Council strongly OBJECTS to the proposal on the following grounds;
* Mansom Plantation is located at the centre of the parish, with residences in close proximity to its boundaries.
* The site provides a habitat for a variety of wildlife, including reptiles. Great Crested Newts have been recorded inhabiting ponds located on the site It is a long established migratory route for deer. These habitats, all the trees and the eco system across at least a 20.3 hectare area would be totally destroyed by the excavations.
* On the Northern boundary of the site is Hevingham Park, a County Wildlife Site, an important amenity, which would be affected.
* Extant planning permission for a holiday lodge park on the site was won on appeal. A S106 agreement exists as part of this approval, together with tree protection orders ("To retain and diversify existing woodlands and trees, which contribute to the appearance of the landscape" etc. "To retain, protect and enhance the ponds and drainage ditches of the land").
* NCC NMWLP Committee members have raised their own concerns regarding the consultation distance of 250 metres not being far reaching enough from neighbouring properties. * The excavation operation and processing plant will generate high levels of noise nuisance and dust, which will be endured by residents over a period of at least eight years while extraction takes place.
* The estimated 76 vehicle movements a day would increase traffic flow onto the A140. There is already difficulty in joining the A 140, particularly at peak times, both from Shortthorn Road and Parish Road, making the route along Shortthorn Road an attractive alternative for heavy vehicles. These roads have no footways and are therefore hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists. The Woodland View mobile home park will also be impacted by this extra traffic, where pedestrians have to cross the A 140, a road with a 60mph speed limit, to get to their bus stop.
* No information has been provided on what would be used to restore the site, or how this would be done. NCC states that the site will be restored to accommodate holiday lodges and create heathland when excavations come to an end. It is felt that restoration of the site would take many years to achieve.
The following points have been raised concerning the supporting information associated with the site:
Point 11 - states "The site must be worked wet without dewatering". The council has serious concerns due to the high-water table; extraction would have to take place in several feet of water. There is potential for pollution and it is said to be more difficult to restore sites that are worked wet. It appears MIN213 is the only site in the Broadland area to be put forward to be worked wet. It is believed there is a risk of groundwater being contaminated during the wet extraction process. The groundwater levels may be impacted and also affect ponds. Heavy machinery has the potential to create compaction of the soil which could also influence surface water flow.
Point 14 - As an aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock, rock fractures or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt), the removal of gravel will disrupt the aquifer storage capability. This can produce a situation where in wet weather, flooding is more likely and in dry weather, there would be less water available during drought conditions. This would in turn affect the remaining trees and ponds on site, the Hevingham Park County Wildlife Site, and beyond.
Point 15 - There is no mention of chalk as a principle aquifer in connection with crag and gravels. Wroxham Crag is a mixture of sand, clay, silts and stones resting on a base of chalk.
Point 16 - It is very likely the Hevingham water course would be affected. Flows are a supporting element in the Water Framework Directive.
Point 17 - states "There are no Anglian Water Sewerage Assets or water assets on the site". An Anglian Water building is located at Mansom Plantation which is a vacuum pumping station (SEW-07998), part of the first-time sewerage scheme, with underground assets: Valve chamber, bio filter, wet well - constructed below ground.
There are eight proposed sites put forward for Broadland and two have already been classed as "not suitable". Of the remaining sites, one has been partially extracted and one is proposed on land north of an existing quarry. The remaining proposals are extensions to existing sites, with the exception of MIN213, which may seem an attractive prospect for a new site. The Parish Council believes' it is not suitable for the foregoing reasons.
The Parish Council trusts that serious consideration will be given to the points highlighted in this letter.

I am writing to you on the proposed planning of extraction of sand and gravel. I think it is too bigger plan for a small parish (village) and wildlife.
My vote will be a NO.

A Petition signed by 104 local residents as follows:

MIN 213 - Land at Mansom Plantation, Shortthorn Road
Petition summary and background: Norfolk County Council has proposed Mansom Plantation, Shortthorn Road, as one of their Preferred Options for the extraction of sand and gravel in their Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The proposal is currently at the consultation stage, which will last until 30 October 2019. The character of the parish could be affected by this for a long time to come. The Parish Council hope that this petition will bring the concerns of residents of Stratton Strawless to the attention of Norfolk County Council.
Action Petitioned for: We, the undersigned, as concerned residents of Stratton Strawless object to the proposed use of land at Mansom Plantation, as one of the Preferred Options for the extraction of sand and gravel.

The following comments were made by individuals who signed the petition:
Too much unwanted traffic and noise / Traffic and noise
Too noisy / dreading the noise / Noise of drills
Too much traffic / Traffic danger / Road and traffic conditions / road surface, accident hotspot /
small lane / roads too busy / danger of lorry / Difficulty to cross road / traffic situation is bad enough
pollution / mud
It is the centre of the village / not appropriate for the middle of a village
Not in keeping with historic value of village
Totally inappropriate beside residential properties
Danger / Too dangerous
Keep Stratton Strawless as it is. We don't need no more lorries.
Not wanted / Do not want it / Do not agree / disagree / object / very strong object / Disgraceful idea / strongly against / no way / General objection / Do not like it at all /
Too much pressure on the environment / Danger to wildlife / destruction to wildlife / water flow, crested newts
Destruction of woodland / concerned about loss of woodland and habitat
Not going to happen
Object strongly due to environmental damage and social inconvenience
Rather caravan park than quarry
Why do we need this
It is not the direction I would wish this village to take / spoil character of village
how would you feel about a quarry near you

Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan Review 2019

Policies
Vision
* We support the progressive restoration schemes and enhancement of Norfolk's biodiversity. Where the third paragraph makes reference to the enhancement of Norfolk's biodiversity, we recommend this is expanded to incorporate the upcoming mandatory requirement for biodiversity net gain, as set out in the Environment Bill and supported by the NPPF.
* Recognising the negative impacts a changing climate will have on the future for wildlife in Norfolk, we recommend that the Vision's target for minimising the impact of minerals development and waste management on climate change is made more ambitious, by changing it to at least a target of net zero or net positive where possible. Opportunities exist for gains for both wildlife and carbon sequestration through appropriate habitat restoration and creation as part of proposals, as already noted in Minerals Strategic Objective MS08.

MW2 - Development Management Criteria
* We support the policy requirement to ensure that development will not have a damaging effect on the natural environment, in particular for locally designated sites (I.e. the County Wildlife Site network).
* However, the aim of the policy appears to focus on a no net loss principle, with enhancements only being sought 'where appropriate'. We recommend that in order to conform with the NPPF, the policy makes reference to the requirement for biodiversity net gain. Reference can also be made to the recent publications by DEFRA on its implementation.

MW4 - Climate change adaptation and mitigation
We support the inclusion of targets for emissions minimisation and renewable energy provision. Given the overlap between new habitat creation, the upcoming mandatory provision of biodiversity net gain and carbon sequestration, we recommend that the policy and supporting text is expanded to note the role habitat creation and restoration can provide in climate change mitigation.

MP2 - Spatial strategy for minerals extraction
We recommend that in addition to the existing defining areas of search, that County Wildlife Sites are also excluded from the Areas of Search for silica sand extraction. We are concerned at the overlap between some proposed minerals sites and the County Wildlife Site network and we do not believe that allocating minerals extraction on CWSs is compatible with the plan's Vision to enhance Norfolk's biodiversity.

MP5 - Core river valleys
We support the approach taken by this policy to safeguard these important key corridors for wildlife through the county, in particular through the requirement for development in these areas to demonstrate that it will enhance the biodiversity of the river valley either immediately or on restoration.

MP7 - Progressive working, restoration and after-use
* Notwithstanding any site specific concerns regarding loss of wildlife sites or indirect impacts (e.g. dust and hydrology), we strongly support the restoration of mineral sites to priority habitats. Such measures offer a rare opportunity to create new habitats that can help Norfolk's wildlife recover from the significant and ongoing declines which it faces.
* Restoration plans should be included at the planning application stage to ensure that the strategic contribution of the site to landscape scale conservation and delivery of biodiversity net gain can be considered.
* Wherever possible, restoration proposals should be matched to existing priority habitats in proximity, to allow for greater connectivity through the landscape for local species. This will also help create a more permeable landscape for the movement of species' ranges in response to climate change in the future.
* Wherever possible, if there is the potential for native species seeds to be present in the seed bank at the start of the working period, then such soils should be stored appropriately to ensure that it can be used in any restoration scheme and allow for recolonization by native flora.

MP8 - Aftercare
We support the aftercare of restored mineral sites in order to ensure that their target habitats are achieved. We strongly support the requirement for longer aftercare provision to ensure successful establishment and maintenance of the approved after-use. As habitat creation/ restoration offers the opportunity to also provide carbon sequestration and contribute to climate change mitigation targets, their establishment may also require longer aftercare periods to demonstrate successful delivery.

Minerals Site Allocations

Silica Sand

MIN40
* We note the potential dewatering risk to East Winch Common SSSI and CWS 140 East Winch Common. This site should only be included in the plan if the Council is confident that such issues can be dealt with satisfactorily through hydrological studies at planning permission, in order to avoid risks to delivery of the plan.
* We therefore support the recommendation that any permission will require a detailed hydrological assessment to determine the safe extent of working that can occur without risking impacts on nearby SSSIs and CWSs.
* We recommend that the restoration proposals include heathland due to the proximity to heathland habitats on East Winch Common, as this will provide ecological connectivity and allow for more movement of wildlife through the landscape.
* The site also has the potential to provide new green infrastructure for the adjoining settlement through provision of wildlife rich public open space as part of restoration proposals.

SIL01 (land at Mintlyn South Bawsey)
* During the previous consultation phase we highlighted that part of the proposed allocation overlaps with CWS 416 '70 & 100 Plantations' and recommended that these areas are safeguarded. The supporting text correctly identifies potential adverse impacts to this CWS and the adjacent CWS 418 Haverlesse Manor Plantation, but makes no attempt to safeguard these. The most appropriate way to ensure that impacts to the CWS are avoided is to exclude it from the minerals allocation, therefore we strongly recommend that CWS 416 is completely excluded from the proposed allocation. In addition, in order to safeguard from any indirect impacts to CWS from impacts such as dust, any allocation would need to include a non-worked buffer between it and both CWS.
* We support the recommendations in the policy text for noise, dust, air quality and hydrology assessments which will help inform ecological assessments of potential impacts on nearby wildlife sites. We recommend that any restoration plan ensures that the existing ecological connectivity between the adjacent wildlife sites is maintained through progressive working and that restoration post-extraction complements the adjoining habitats.
* We also note in the supporting text that the land use of the proposed allocation is classed as non-agricultural land, however we understand that this is likely to be incorrect as the southern part of the site has been in regular use as grazed grassland for at least twenty years. This area is likely to be of ecological significance, with anecdotal records of several protected species present as well as a number of mature oak trees on the southern boundary. In the absence of further information on the ecological value of this area and the potential impacts on a range of protected species (and any consequent impacts on delivery) as a precaution we recommend that this part of the site is removed from the allocation.

AoS E
* We are concerned at the large scale of this AoS and its proximity to multiple CWS. Any application within the AoS would need to be accompanied by a detailed ecological appraisal and hydrological assessment where appropriate.
* Mow Fen CWS is within the AoS and not suitable for minerals extraction, therefore we strongly recommend its removal from AoS and the provision of a buffer around it to avoid impacts such as dust.
* The AoS lies adjacent to CWS 373, species-rich grassland which will need buffering from the AoS.

AoS F
* We note the proximity of the northern area of the AoS to CWS 365, Broad Meadow Plantation. We strongly recommend a stand-off or buffer between any proposal in the AoS and the CWS in order to safeguard from indirect impacts.
* Proposals in proximity to any CWS would need to be accompanied by dust and hydrology assessments.
* We note from the maps provided that there appear to be a high number of ponds within the AoS and in the wider landscape. The potential for impacts on protected species and the likely requirements for ecological restoration will need to be considered as part of any application in this AoS.

AoS J
Due to the proximity to wildlife sites, we support the requirement for ecology and hydrology assessments as part of any application within this AoS.

SIL02 - land at Shouldham and Marham (silica sand)
Due to the unknown potential scale of minerals development that this Area of Search would support and the number of CWS in close proximity in particular Marham Fen CWS, we are concerned at the potential for significant impacts on wildlife and therefore support the Council's recommendation that this site is not progressed in the plan.

Carstone

MIN6 - Land off East Winch Road, Mill Drove, Middleton
We support the working of this site dry to avoid hydrology impacts, and the proposed restoration of this site to heathland habitat.

Breckland

MIN51&MIN13
We support the creation of new wet woodland habitat around retained wetland areas, as well as new hedgerows and oak standards alongside the northern boundary.

MIN200
We support the restoration proposals for this site.

MIN 102
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts likely on the adjacent Swangey Fen SSSI, a component of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC.

Broadland

MIN202
* We previously raised concerns that this allocation overlaps with CWS 1344 'Triumph and Foxburrow Plantations' and repeat our recommendation that, in order to safeguard the CWS, the allocation boundary should be modified, with a stand-off area between any mineral working and wildlife sites (the CWS and ancient woodland at Mileplain Plantation) in order to mitigate for any indirect impacts such as dust.
* We support the restoration to a mosaic of acid grassland, woodland and wetland [check policy text] and recommend that the potential for heathland to be added.

MIN37 & MIN64
We hold no specific information on the proposed sites MIN 37 and MIN 64, but note their proximity to two County Wildlife Sites and strongly recommend that any restoration proposals for these sites, if allocated, are targeted to match wherever possible the habitats present in the nearby CWS in order to maximize ecological connectivity.

MIN96
We note the proximity to CWS 2205, Spixworth Bridge Meadows, and CWS 1396, Spixworth Meadows, and support the requirement for this site to only be worked dry in order to avoid any potential impacts on the CWSs through changes in local hydrology. We also support the requirement for a dust assessment.


MIN213
* We note that this allocation is adjacent to CWS 2204, Hevingham Park, a replanted ancient woodland with pingos and rich ground flora in places, as well as an additional area of ancient woodland outside the CWS. These habitats will be vulnerable to typical impacts from minerals operations and any application will need to be supported by a dust assessment, with appropriate mitigation including vegetative screening for the extraction period.
* The policy text indicates that the site would be worked wet. We support the policy requirement for a hydrogeological assessment to be provided as part of any application, and note this should also cover impacts on the ecology of adjacent wildlife sites. In addition, we also recommend that the Council will need to be sure that the site can be worked wet without leading to adverse impacts on adjacent wildlife sites (after mitigation) in order to ensure that it is deliverable.
* We support the restoration proposals to heathland where opportunities around the existing holiday park consent allow.
* We have been made aware of the likely presence of great crested newts on the site. In addition, given the extensive woodland on site, the presence of other protected species such as bats are also likely. As a result we would expect any application to be accompanied by a detailed ecological appraisal. Should such populations be present, then any progressive working programme is likely to require retention of sufficient areas of habitat at any one time to allow for their retention.
* Given the proximity of pingos to the north, the potential for this site to include pingos should also be investigated.

MIN48
Due to the proximity to Swannington Upgate Common SSSI and likely impacts, we support the removal of this from the plan.

Great Yarmouth

MIN38 - land at Waveney Forest, Fritton
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the likely impacts on the Waveney Forest and Fritton Warren South County Wildlife Sites (CWS), in particular the remnant heathland elements of the Forest and the adjoining wetland habitats at Fritton Warren. Should the Council proceed with this site in the plan, then we would expect further evidence on ecology and hydrology to demonstrate that it is deliverable whilst avoiding impacts on the adjacent CWSs. Given the potential for the areas adjacent to the CWSs to support protected species and be of similar ecological value, any application would need to be accompanied by detailed ecological and hydrological appraisals, including restoration plans that complement the adjacent wildlife sites.

King's Lynn & West Norfolk

MIN 206 - land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill
We support the requirements for hydrological assessment in the supporting text as part of any ecological appraisal accompanying an application for this site, and recommend that this is also included in the policy text for clarity.

MIN 45
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to its location on ancient woodland, defined as an irreplaceable habitat in the NPPF.

MIN19&205
We support the exclusion of these sites from further consideration in the plan due to the proximity to the River Nar SSSI.

MIN74
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts predicted on wildlife sites.

MIN77
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts predicted on wildlife sites.

North Norfolk

MIN69 - north of Holt Road, Aylmerton
Whilst we are unable to comment on the wider impacts of this proposal as they are outside of our remit, should this site be progressed, then we strongly support the Council's recommendations that this site should only be worked dry in order to avoid hydrological impacts on the nearby Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and be subject to high quality restoration and formal aftercare, creating a large new area of heathland with benefits both for wildlife and green infrastructure provision. We support the precautionary requirement for noise and dust assessments as part of any application in order to evaluate potential impacts on nearby wildlife sites and the requirement to demonstrate that adverse effects on the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC would be avoided.

MIN115 - land at Lord Anson's Wood, near North Walsham
Due to the proximity of two SSSIs and Weaver's Way County Wildlife Site (CWS) which include wetland habitats, the site should only be worked dry in order to avoid any impacts. We support the requirement for dust assessments and identification of appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that nearby CWSs are not impacted by this allocation. We support the proposed restoration to woodland and heathland and recommend that restoration proposals are secured as part of any application.

MIN207 - land at Pinkney Field, Briston
We note the proposed restoration to reservoir and agricultural grassland which we understand is linked to existing adjacent planning consents. However, we recommend that any allocation should demonstrate it can deliver biodiversity net gain in its own right and should include sufficient areas of priority habitats as set out in policy MP7 (see supporting text MP7.5, for example woodland and heathland) to ensure this can be delivered in addition to compensating for displaced features from existing consents.

MIN208 - land south of Holt Road, East Beckham
We support the proposed restoration of the site to a mosaic of native woodland, scrub and acid grassland.

MIN71- land west of Norwich Road, Holt
We agree with the Council's evaluation that this site is unsuitable for allocation due to the likely impacts to Holt Lowes SSSI, a component of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, as well as to the multiple County Wildlife Sites in close proximity. In the absence of a detailed hydrological assessment it is not clear that this site can be worked without an adverse effect on the SAC, therefore there is a risk that the site would not be deliverable if retained in the plan.

South Norfolk

MIN209
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN210
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN211
* We support the requirement for dust assessment and mitigation proposals as part of any application given the proximity to CWSs and ancient woodland.
* We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN25
* We support the requirement for dust and hydrology assessments and mitigation proposals as part of any application given the proximity to CWSs.
* We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN212
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN92
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts predicted on wildlife sites.

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options Consultation (MIN 35 - land at Heath Road, Eccles, Quidenham)

Further to the publication of the above I would like to make the following comments on behalf of Frimstone Ltd and wish to register an Objection to the Consultation Draft and support the allocation for MIN 35 for the reasons outlined below.

Landscape
Following the initial findings of the Preferred Options Consolation a Landscape and Visual Statement was commissioned and completed by Collington Winters in October 2019. The report demonstrates and concludes that the site would have acceptable local landscape impacts and that the screening would not be intrusive in its own right. The report also recommends that it will be possible to mitigate adverse landscape impacts through advance planting and bunding.

It is highlighted in the enclosed Landscape and Visual Statement that the proposed site is not located within the AONB, a Core River Valley or any other designated landscape features. It must be noted that unlike MIN 69 - land north of Holt Road, Aylmerton, MIN 211 - land west of Bath Hills Road, Earsham (Extension area 3) which is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads Authority Executive Area and MIN 25 - land at Manor Farm (between Loddon Road and Thorpe Road), Haddiscoe which is adjacent to a Core River Valley and also is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads Authority Executive Area).

The enclosed report also demonstrates that the existing landscape detractors mean that the proposed site cannot be considered a tranquil, unspoilt area of the countryside.
The proposal sets the limit of extraction approximately 150 metres from the southern boundary of the site, so as to allow the site to be screened in a way which would not be significantly detrimental to the views from the immediate south. Existing bunding associated with the historic landfill is present which already screens out long-range views for properties to the south of the proposed site.
The proposed new bunding associated with the MIN 35 development will be set back from the southern boundary so as to not have an adverse effect on views over the field and the woodland to the west from those properties to the south of the site. The proposed limit of extraction means that there would be less difference between the views of the existing bunding associated with the historic landfill and those of new bunding associated with this proposed development from the south and southeast of the site.

Screen bunding and advance hedge planting is proposed along the site boundary on Heath Road to ensure that users of Heath Road are not able to gain medium-to-long-range views across the site, including the existing partially screened timber yard opposite the area of the site not proposed to be worked.

Any future application for mineral extractions at this site will be accompanied with a
further carefully designed landscape scheme that addresses the visual impacts that may, unless controlled, potentially affect local residents. Substantial buffer zones are proposed comprising advanced planting of woodland copses and planting belts, that are to be retained within the site restoration, and screen bunds in place surrounding the immediate area proposed for mineral extraction.

The temporary bunds are proposed to be of adequate height to screen the upper story views from housing and it will be ensured that the grading, profiles appearance and management of vegetation on the temporary bunds will benefit from careful treatment. These mitigation requirements shall be followed to ensure that the screening features are not visually intrusive as it is recognised that residents may have views of these across the existing agricultural fields to the east and southwest of the site, and also from the adjacent road.

I therefore wish to object to the conclusions reached in terms of considering MIN 35 unsuitable for allocation in landscape terms, as following a review of baseline information, together with consideration of likely landscape and visual effects, it is considered that the application site and wider landscape is able to accommodate the proposal for mineral extraction, in landscape and visual terms, without having an unacceptable effect or loss of landscape character or visual amenity. Any loss of landscape character would be temporary and upon restoration, character would be reinforced and enhanced.

Provision for minerals extraction (Policy MP1)
The NPPG suggests that the 10-year rolling average, 3 year rolling average and the sub-national guidelines should all be considered in order to establish a broad understanding of current and future mineral demand, especially during reviews of planned provision. The sub-national guidelines are for Norfolk to produce 2.57 million tonnes of sand and gravel a year.
It has been considered by the MPA that planning to provide the 20-year average annual production figure would enable a sufficient quantity of sand and gravel resources to be available over the 18- year plan period and would take into account potential fluctuations in the economy.
Over the 18-year plan period to 2036, using the considered suitable 20-year average of 1.868 million tpa, 33.624 million tonnes of sand and gravel resources would be needed in total. Taking into account the existing permitted reserve, the remaining need for allocated sites is 20.313 million tonnes of sand and gravel.
However, using the sub-national guidelines for sand and gravel, as specified in the NPPG this would mean that sites for 32,949,300 tonnes of sand and gravel extraction would need to be allocated over the plan period. The sub-national guideline figures cover the period 2005-2020 and therefore remains current at this stage of the Consultation process, and must remain so until these figures are updated. Therefore, a stronger case has to be made by the MPA as to why they consider the current subnational guidelines not to be relevant in producing this plan and more specifically the landbank figure required in the Plan period to the end of 2036. Furthermore, may I raise the question to the MPA as to what the justification is for using a 20-year average annual production figure, rather than a 25-year
average or likewise 18-year to cover the remainder of the plan period, for example?

I therefore wish to object to the methodology used in establishing the required tonnages of sand and gravel resource to be allocated within the Plan period to the end 2036 as referred to in Policy MP1: Provisions of minerals extraction. The 20-year average methodology has not been accepted as a valid methodology for establishing this figure and therefore should not be considered as sound. This is demonstrated by the NPPG which considers that only the 10-year rolling average, 3 year rolling average and the sub-national guidelines should all be considered in order to establish a broad understanding of current and future mineral demand, especially during reviews of planned provision.

I would consequently like to object to this figure in relation to MIN 35, which at the 'Initial Consultation' stage of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review was considered as suitable for allocation based on the proposed 20-year average annual production figure in August 2018.

However, the current proposed allocation figure less than 18 months later is greatly reduced and is considered the only reason for the site to now be considered as unsuitable, due to the fact that the proposals have not changed in terms of the site development since that date.

Suitability of alternatives considered as suitable for allocation
There are a number of sites that have been considered suitable for allocation in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review that are very similar to MIN 35 in terms of their potential impact on the local landscape from viewpoints from surrounding sensitive receptors. The table below and subsequent consultation extracts identifies and breaks down each site in terms of the number of sensitive receptors within 250m and 100m of the proposed extraction area compared with MIN 35, respectively. Therefore, on a logical comparative basis MIN 35 sits within the top three of the proposed sites with the least number of sensitive receptors.

INSERT TABLE

MIN 210 "the impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long-distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting. The views of the mineral working from Park Farm Cottages will predominantly be screened by bunding"

MIN 211 "the impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long-distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting. The views of the mineral working from nearby properties will predominantly be screened by bunding"

MIN 65 "glimpses of the land can be seen from Frettenham Road to the west through gaps in boundary hedges. Views could also be seen from two properties which lie close to the site perimeter to the west and east respectively"

MIN 213 "views into the site may be possible from Shorthorn Road, through the proposed entrance"

MIN 25 "there are mature screen planting forming hedgerows on all sides of the site, except a section of the eastern boundary closest to Manor Farm"

MIN 12 "views of the site would be seen from Field Lane, a road used as a public path which bounds the site to the north. In addition, the southern part of the site is slightly elevated and may be visible in a long view from public paths crossing land to the north of the Whitewater valley"

MIN 209 "a number of properties back onto the road overlook the site, the impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long-distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting"

The above findings were concluded by the MPA as being acceptable subject to the erection of screen bunds and advanced planting. Likewise, it is stated that any potential views of MIN 35 would require mitigation through screen bunding and advance hedge planting. Therefore, given the supporting information above, as part of the independent Landscape and Visual Statement, it is considered that the MIN 35 site should be considered suitable for allocation due to the similarities it shares in landscape terms with the above sites that themselves have been considered suitable for allocation.

Furthermore, three sites have been considered suitable for allocation that are either within or adjacent to the AONB, a Core River Valley or any other designated landscape features, namely MIN 69, MIN 211 and MIN 25. Since MIN 35 is not located within or even close to any of these designated landscape features, preference must be given to this site in planning terms as required by the
requirements of NPPF Paragraph 205.

Since the 'Initial Consultation' stage of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review and additional site has come forward and is now considered as suitable for allocation in the 'Preferred Options Consultation'. This is MIN 213 land at Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless for a total estimated sand and gravel resource of 1 million tonnes. The site has been selected in preference to MIN 35, due to the fact that the MIN 35 site was formerly considered as suitable for allocation at the 'Initial Consultation' stage. However, it is considered that this new site (MIN 213) not only presents a similar landscape impact to MIN 35 as described above, but also represents a site that will result in the permanent loss of a well-established coniferous plantation for after use as a holiday lodge development. MIN 213 is also located adjacent to an ancient replanted woodland to which deterioration is likely to occur as a result of the mineral operation. As such, any application that concludes this unless there are wholly exceptional reasons should be refused as in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 175c. Therefore, the site cannot be considered as being suitable for allocation given this likely impact.

I therefore would like to object to the inclusion of the above sites as being considered suitable for allocation, whereas MIN 35 is considered unsuitable solely on landscape grounds. It has been demonstrated above that preference should not be given to any of these sites over and above MIN 35 and that MIN 35 should be reconsidered in light of the additional supporting landscape and visual statement and be concluded as once again suitable for allocation as at the 'Initial Consultation' stage of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.

Conclusion
On behalf of Frimstone Limited, I would contend that the information submitted as part of this consultation adequately addresses the reasons why this site has not been considered suitable for allocation and that the site should now be allocated. This would add only a further 0.5 million tonnes to the overall landbank figure for the plan period and be worked and restored considerably before the end of 2036. Therefore, I see no reason why these revisions should not be carried forward to adoption in the review of the Local Plan.

Enc.
Landscape and Visual Statement (Ref. CW0121-RPT-001), dated 30 October 2019
Ecological Scoping Report (Ref. E17864), dated 2 August 2017

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Preferred Options Draft 2019

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Further Consultation Draft. As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

Our comments below should be read with reference to our previous comments dated 31st August 2018. Please also see our detailed comments in the attached table, Appendix 1. [ATTACHED]

SUMMARY
Whilst we consider many aspects of the plan to be sound we have identified issues with some of the policies and site allocations which do compromise the overall soundness of the plan.

Under paragraph 35 of the NPPF some aspects of this Plan are unsound as they have not been positively prepared, are not justified, effective, or consistent with national policy. We have identified below some of the key areas where we find the Plan unsound and what measures are needed to make the Plan sound. In summary we highlight the following issues:

a) Insufficient Historic Environment Policy
It is our view that there is currently insufficient policy provision for the historic environment in the Plan. We note that the historic environment is addressed in bullet point l of policy MW2. We remain very concerned that criterion l does not provide sufficient protection for the historic environment. Normally we would expect to see a specific separate policy for the historic environment in a Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This policy is insufficient as it stands. Further detail is set out in the attached table.

b) AOS E and SIL2 - HIA
Whilst we welcome the completion of an HIA for AOSE and site SIL2, we have identified a number of shortcomings in the assessment, particularly the need to address non-designated heritage assets and the wider historic environment and inter-relationship between the various assets in this complex medieval landscape. Our concerns are set out in more detail in the attached table. We suggest that the HIA is revised accordingly to provide a robust evidence base for the Plan. We also suggest that the Plan should not simply mark areas with purple hatching that have been identified by the HIA as unsuitable for extraction, but actually delete those areas from the areas of search and site allocation in the Plan altogether.

c) Other allocations requiring further assessment/proportionate evidence
We have identified a number of site allocations where we continue to have concerns regarding the potential impact on the historic environment, perhaps due to proximity of heritage assets or the highly graded nature of some of these assets. These sites are set out in the attached table and include MIN65, MIN96, MIN213, MIN 209/10/11, MIN25 AND MIN40. For these sites we recommend an HIA is prepared now in advance of the next draft of the Plan. This should provide a robust evidence base for the plan. Any evidence needs to be proportionate, and need not necessarily be particularly onerous. .For most of these sites a fairly brief HIA will suffice. Our site allocations advice note <https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/> provides further advice in this respect and we would be happy to discuss the matter further and advise on a suitable way forward.

d) MIN 207 Land at Pinkney Field, Briston
We recommend that site is deleted from the Plan due to the impact on the historic environment.

Further details of each of these main areas are set out in the attached table.
We have suggested a series of other changes to the Plan. Many of these changes do not go to the heart of the Plan's soundness, but instead are intended to improve upon it. We believe that these comments can be addressed by changes to wording in the plan.

Sustainability Appraisal
We do not have the capacity to review the Sustainability Appraisal report in any detail but did note on quickly skimming the report some surprising conclusions in the report. For example in relation to site MIN 40 - land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch where it was concluded that there would be 'No effects expected during the extraction phase' despite a grade II* listed church being located just 50m from the site boundary.

We consider that with such proximity there is likely to be some effects on the setting of this asset. On this brief observation we must question the some of the assessment in the SA.

In preparation of the forthcoming local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on a policy, allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or document is devoid of historic environment issues. We should like to stress that this response is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise as a result of this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. In the meantime we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues.

Original draft response received 30.10.2019
Revised response received 08.11.2019

Highway Authority comments regarding sites proposed for allocation only

MIN 12 - North of Chapel Lane, Beetley
Acceptable subject to continued use of conveyor

MIN 51 & MIN 13 - West of Bilney Road, Beetley
Acceptable subject to suitable access strategy. MIN51 to be accessed via MIN13

MIN 200 - West of Cuckoo Lane, Carbrooke
Acceptable subject to provision of acceptable access at Mill Lane along with provision of passing places between the site and the B1108. Existing haul route and Mill Lane crossing to processing plant to be utilised, or appropriate alternative to be provided. Routing agreement required along with weight limit to protect Carbrooke settlement north of the site.

MIN 202 - South of Reepham Road, Attlebridge
Acceptable subject to use of existing access at Reepham Road and lorry routing via A1270 Broadland Northway

MIN 37 - Mayton Wood, Coltishall Rd, Buxton
Acceptable subject to provision of satisfactory temporary access at C494 Coltishall Road with acceptable visibility. Local highway improvements including widening required, to be delivered via S278 agreement. Temporary access to be removed on restoration of site. Routing agreement required.

MIN 64 - Grange Farm, Buxton Rd, Horstead
Acceptable subject to provision of satisfactory temporary access at C494 Coltishall Road with acceptable visibility. Local highway improvements including widening required, to be delivered via S278 agreement. Temporary access to be removed on restoration of site. Routing agreement required.

MIN 65 - North of Stanninghall Quary
Acceptable subject to access via existing site and routing agreement.

MIN 96 - Grange Farm (between Spixworth Rd & Coltishall La), Spixworth
Acceptable subject to access via A1270 Broadland Northway roundabout at Norwich Airport. Improvements required at the roundabout to formalise access to site, along with relocation of access gates to provide sufficient space for 2 HGVs to stop clear of the roundabout. Relocation of processing plant to south of C250 Church Lane required. Removal of HGV access at Buxton Road also required.

MIN 213 - Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless
Acceptable subject to acceptable access at Shortthorn Road and routing agreement via A140.

MIN 206 - Oak Field west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill
Acceptable subject to access via land to north, then A10. Routing agreement required.

MIN 69 - North of Holt Road, Aylmerton
Acceptable subject to provision of right hand turn lane at A148 junction with Briton's Lane, visibility improvements at site access, improvements to Britons Lane and routing agreement, in accordance with the existing allocation.

MIN 115 - Lord Anson's Wood, North Walsham
Acceptable subject to site access being via private haul route to acceptable access at B1150

MIN 207 - Pinkney Field, Briston
Acceptable subject to continuation of existing haul route

MIN 208 - South of Holt Road, East Beckham
Acceptable subject to access via existing right turn facility. Right turn lane to be removed following completion of extraction/restoration.

MIN 209 - Adjacent to A143 (Extension Area 1), Earsham
Acceptable subject to appropriate highway access and local highway improvements at Hall Road

MIN 210 - Adjacent to A143 (Extension Area 2), Earsham
Acceptable subject to site access via Site MIN 209 along with any appropriate improvements to the local highway at Hall Road and the site access. Material conveyor required.

MIN 211 - West of Bath Hills Rd (Extension Area 2), Earsham
Acceptable subject to site access via Site MIN 209 along with any appropriate improvements to the local highway at Hall Road and the site access. Material conveyor required.

MIN 25 - Manor Farm (between Loddon Rd & Thorpe Rd), Haddiscoe
Acceptable subject to suitable access strategy either via Crab Apple Lane, or direct to B1136. Access via Crab Lane would require local highway improvements to include widening to the access and visibility at the B1136 junction in accordance with DMRB. Direct access via B1136 to include visibility in accordance with DMRB.

MIN 212 - Mundham Rd, Mundham
The Highway Authority would not wish to comment regarding the proposed mineral extraction site. However, the location of the processing site is a concern and in particular the routing of HGVs through Trowse village. It would be desirable if the material could be processed at source.

MIN 6 - East Winch Rd, Mill Drove, Middleton
Acceptable subject to use of internal haul route, existing processing facilities, acceptable visibility at access and routing agreement. The allocation would result in a continuation of turning movements at the A47, Highways England should have the opportunity to comment.

MIN 40 - East of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
Acceptable subject to material processing at existing plant, use of existing internal haul-route required and continued use of rail for material transportation.

SIL 01 - Mintlyn South, Bawsey
Acceptable subject to extraction phased with MIN 40, submission of Transport Assessment with acceptable access strategy. Material transportation to existing processing plant via internal haul route and acceptbale crossing / conveyor of highway and utilise existing rail facilities.

AOS E - North of Shouldham
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Access to be via A143 with right turn lane with suitable levels of visibility. Access via West Briggs Drove would not be appropriate without significant improvement. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

AOS F - North of Stow Bardolph
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Northern site, access via Runcton Road, widening may be required along with improvements at its junction with A10 to include right turn lane. Southern site, access to be via A10 with right turn lane with suitable levels of visibility. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

AOS I - East of South Runcton
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Runcton Road would require widening along with improvements at its junction with A10, or A134 to include right turn lane. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

AOS J - East of Tottenhill
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Access via A134 to include right turn lane. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

Please stop the 50 acres of woodland on the shorthorn rd Stratton strawless to make way for a sand and gravel pit the devasting effect of deer badgers birds insects and I believe the great crested newts would be a crime it would end of a baron waste land...