Specific Site Allocation Policy MIN 202 (land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge):
Object
Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication
Representation ID: 99152
Received: 24/10/2022
Respondent: Claire Woodhouse
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I can confirm that I am the owner of the property [redacted personal data] and at the time of purchase June 2020 I was unaware that Cemex now Breedon Group had made an application to extract minerals just 250m from the property. Recently one of our neighbours, who has lived here 30 years, visited us because he had been asked if sound recording equipment could be placed in his property, he stated his concerns.
Upon investigation we found the application that Cemex had made. We read much of the information in the report including the noise report that was submitted with the application. We noted that there had been sound measurements taken at [redacted personal data] that suggest current sound levels are between 40/50db. With the predominant sound being wind blowing through trees and bird sound. I can confirm that one of the main reasons for the purchase of the property is that it sits in an area of protected woodland with many ancient trees some going back 400 years. It is a very peaceful and quiet location.
The report states clearly that the extraction equipment that a quarry would use will generate noise as loud as 85db. I believe this this is at a distance of 400m. On that basis we will of course object to the quarry permission being granted and any other development on the site including waste management. We also note that there was a letter from Breedon stating that the application had
been withdrawn. We received confirmation of this from Martin Clark. So, I am confused by the fact a new letter has arrived stating the project is in the planning process.
In summary, please take this letter as a written notification of objection to any development on the
site located 250m from my property. Please advise me in writing of any further activity on the application or any other application that affects the local site.
Support
Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication
Representation ID: 99214
Received: 09/12/2022
Respondent: Breedon Trading Limited
The Company supports the identification of the site as a site allocation for the winning and working of minerals.
Object
Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication
Representation ID: 99345
Received: 18/12/2022
Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
In our response to the previous 2019 consultation we noted that this site overlaps with Triumph & Foxburrow Plantations County Wildlife Site and the Mileplain Plantation ancient woodland partially within the site boundary. However, the site boundary does not appear to have been changed in order to avoid impacts on these important ecological features. Whilst we have no objection in principle to the majority of the allocation, we are significantly concerned that the allocation includes part of a County Wildlife Site, in clear contradiction with the goals of policy MW1.
Full text: In our response to the previous 2019 consultation we noted that this site overlaps with Triumph & Foxburrow Plantations County Wildlife Site and the Mileplain Plantation ancient woodland partially within the site boundary. However, the site boundary does not appear to have been changed in order to avoid impacts on these important ecological features. Whilst the supporting text for the policy states in M202.12 that there should be a stand off distance of at least 15 metres from the ancient woodland, we question why the red line boundary for the allocation abuts the ancient woodland and includes part of the CWS. Notwithstanding our concerns about the inclusion of part of a CWS in this allocation, and its unacceptable proximity to ancient woodland, we have no objection in principle to the remainder of the allocation area and support the proposed restoration to heathland.
We strongly recommend that the site boundary is modified to remove any overlap with the CWS and set the required stand off distance where ancient woodland is present. For section d, we recommend that natural regeneration rather than planting is preferred, as this is far more likely to establish successfully and will avoid any risks of introducing disease from imported tree stock. Given the proximity to Swannington Upgate Common SSSI, part of which is also the Upgate Common Norfolk Wildlife Trust reserve, we recommend that policy wording requiring dry working is included in the policy text, in line with the approach taken for MIN 200, for consistency and certainty of delivery.
Comment
Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication
Representation ID: 99430
Received: 19/12/2022
Respondent: Natural England
Natural England notes that MIN 202 is adjacent to Mileplain Plantation, a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) and welcomes the requirement for an Arboricultural Impact Assessment in the Specific Site Allocation Policy MIN 202. We would recommend reference to standing advice [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-how-to-review-planning-applications] for ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees, which has been produced by Natural England and the Forestry Commission for further guidance when making decisions that affect ancient woodland, ancient trees or veteran trees.