Specific Site Allocation Policy MIN 51 / MIN 13 / MIN 08 (land west of Bilney Road, Beetley):

Comment

Representation ID: 99241

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

There are no designated heritage assets on site. The grade II* church of St Peter, Manor Farmhouse listed grade II and a scheduled monument (a deserted medieval village) lie to the west of the sites whilst to the north of the site lies East Bilney and several listed buildings, the closest of which is the grade II listed Almshouses.
We welcome the specific reference to the nearest heritage assets in the policy.

Support

Representation ID: 99286

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Longwater Gravel Co. Ltd.

Longwater Gravel Company Limited supports the allocation of MIN 51, MIN 13 and MIN 08. A planning application for these sites has now been submitted.

Object

Representation ID: 99335

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Gressenhall parish council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Summary: Given that Middleton Aggregates operate a pit next door and mindful of the existence of a second independent based 2 miles away, we see no case for the introduction of another operator. There is plenty of competition in existence able to service the local market and we see no case for that changing. We note the NPP Guidance identifies the need for the mineral in the specific representation; the economic considerations; the positive/negative environmental impact; and accumulative impact of proposals in an area. We consider the guidance supports our contention that you should support MIN12 but reject MIN13 and MIN51.

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

Object

Representation ID: 99343

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Due to the proximity to Beetley and Hoe Meadows SSSI, Horse Wood Mileham SSSI and Dillington Carr, Gressenhall SSSI, as well as Beck Farm Meadows CWS and Rawhall Wood CWS (also an ancient woodland), the supporting text states that the site would be worked dry only above the water table. 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: 99428

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Natural England

We note that for MIN08, MIN13 and MIN 51 it is currently stated that: “The site is proposed to be restored at a lower level and the majority returned to arable agricultural. Due to the expected depth of extraction, it is recognised that restoration to arable is likely to require the use of imported inert material to provide a suitable profile. Lagoons to be retained as ponds with planting to create wet woodland habitat. Hedgerow interspersed with oaks is to be planted along the northern boundary alongside Rawhall Lane. A proportion of the site will be restored to woodland and associated grassland habitat”
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: 99465

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Breckland District Council

MIN 8 - land north of Stoney Lane Beetley
Breckland DC has stated in its previous response to the 2019 consultation that it was considered that this site was unsuitable due to excessive increase in traffic in the area and access issues and deliverability as the site is owned by a landowner and not a minerals aggregate operator. The information on this site proposal has been aggregated with the information for Min 51 and 13 so it is not clear whether these issues have been addressed in particular to this site.