Specific Site Allocation Policy MIN 12 (land north of Chapel Lane, Beetley):

Object

Representation ID: 99084

Received: 18/10/2022

Respondent: Beetley Methodist Chapel

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Ref: MIN12 Beetley
The Methodist Chapel, at the junction of High House Road and Chapel Lane, faces the proposed site. It is a well-used building.
It is essential that the restrictions suggested are complied with, in particular the stand-off area to the south, the screening, landscaping and dust mitigation.
Transportation by HGV should be restricted to the B1146 and banned from using High House Road.

Object

Representation ID: 99218

Received: 12/12/2022

Respondent: Beetley Methodist Chapel

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Minerals and Waste Local Plan – MIN 12 Land north of Chapel Lane, Beetley
Further to my submission sent on 18th October, with the extension until the 18th December, I would like to add additional detail.
1. We are disappointed and do not understand how this proposal has once more come forward when it was declined just four years ago.

2. Sand and gravel resources are widespread throughout most of Norfolk.

3. This is the second extension of a Middleton Gravel site that has progressively expanded to the south east. Whilst this may provide some economic benefits to the mining company, it is inexplicable why the proposed site has been extended up to the Beetley village boundary when resources are common in Norfolk. Shouldn’t Middleton Gravels be asked to find another site that is away from village boundaries, for such sites undoubtedly do exist. Why is a small village abused in such a way?

4. I understand that it is customary with minerals site extensions for there to be planning conditions that a new phase is not opened until the earlier site has been officially closed and restored to the conditions set out in the original permit. In this case, the first site, while apparently no longer in use, has not been restored at all. The second site is still in active use. Can it be presumed that if the new site goes forward, that it cannot start until mining the prior site is completed?

5. Furthermore, this new site has begun to interpose itself between Old Beetley and (new) Beetley village, which is surely not acceptable in civic terms.

6. Beetley Chapel was founded in 1871 as the Primitive Methodist Chapel for Beetley. The evangelist Primitive Methodist churches were often established at the end of fields to serve their agrarian members. This explains why it is situated where it is, and why some respect needs to be afforded to its 151 years of service. There are also several houses adjacent.

7. A buffer zone is proposed up against the Chapel, but there is no indication as to how deep it is. From the map, it does not appear very deep. An obstruction to viewing, as well as noise and dust, can be expected should this mining site (MIN12 land north of Chapel Lane, Beetley) go forward. On open fields, this is usually in the form of a bund. However, bunds do not work well on downward sloping fields. We therefore request that any bund is placed just over the top of the hill – this would keep the site out of visibility. We also request routine use of silencers on heavy equipment, and dust suppression that takes into consideration the siting of the mine near the top of an incline and with the prevailing winds leading to the Chapel area.

8. We would request that there should be no work after 12 noon on Saturday and an absolute prevention of Sunday working. This of course would not stop interference with events on week days.

I trust that our concerns will be taken with the utmost seriousness and thank you for your attention.

Comment

Representation ID: 99240

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, there are three listed buildings to the east of the site, including the Grade I listed Church of Mary Magdalene and Old Hall and Beetley Hall, both listed at grade II. Given the open nature of the landscape in this area, extraction at the site could have an impact on the wider setting of the church.
We welcome the specific reference to the nearest heritage assets to read ‘heritage assets and their settings (including the grade I listed Church of Mary Magdalene and grade II listed Old Hall and Beetley Hall)…’

Object

Representation ID: 99342

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The supporting text states that due to the site being 1.16km from the Beetley and Hoe Meadows SSSI site boundary, and being one of the finest remaining areas of wet unimproved grassland in Norfolk, the proposed extraction would be worked dry, above the water table. Also, Dillington Carr, Gressenhall SSSI is 1.44km from site boundary, CWS1027 Gressenhall Green Marshes is 730m from site boundary and Great Wood ancient woodland is 1.28km from the allocation. However, no specific condition is in included in MIN12 to ensure that the site will only be worked dry above the water table.

Comment

Representation ID: 99427

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Natural England

We note that for MIN12 it is currently stated that the site is “proposed to be restored at a lower level and returned to arable agriculture. Restoration would include wide field margins, new hedgerows and some woodland”.
These allocations are stated as being of Grade 3 agricultural land quality and so it is unclear as to whether or not this is BMV land (i.e. sub-grade 3a). If not, then it could be beneficial in terms of nature recovery in this area to explore whether the restoration of these sites could further complement/expand on the nature recovery ambitions of the nearby Wendling Beck Environment Project [https://www.wendlingbeck.org/] to deliver more habitat creation in this area which is bigger, better and joined up in line with the Lawton principles [Making Space for Nature: (nationalarchives.gov.uk) [https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130402170324mp_/http:/archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf].

Comment

Representation ID: 99462

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Breckland District Council

MIN 12 - This is an extension of an existing site, Breckland DC has no objections.

Comment

Representation ID: 99511

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Gressenhall parish council

We note that MIN12 is put forward by Middleton Aggregates as an extension to their existing operation which will take mineral back to their long established plant site due north of Gressenhall Village. We note that this has estimated minerals of well in excess of 1million tonnes and that this allocation will enable the Middleton Aggregates pit to continue to be served well beyond the plan period to 2036. As such we do not have an objection with this allocation.
We consider that the NPP guidance as set out above therefore fully supports our contention that you should support MIN12 but reject MIN13 and MIN51.