Specific Site Allocation Policy MIN 65 (land north of Stanninghall Quarry):

Object

Representation ID: 99135

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is noted that this site has planning permission and the plan may not include this policy if the scheme has started.
On Google Maps there is a photograph apparently showing some plant of significant size at the existing Tarmac Stanninghall Quarry. The Plan text does not indicate anything of this scale/height although Policy MIN 65 (j) refers to use of existing processing plant at the proposed site.  This is somewhat concerning. 
The site could potentially have adverse effects on the Broads and setting of the Broads in terms of scale, and proximity in relation to the numbers of visitors to attractions and facilities in Horstead/Coltishall area – this needs to be addressed by the LVIA.

Soundness test: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99246

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We understand from the Council that planning permission has now been granted for this site and to that end the principle of development has been established.
Nevertheless, it is still important for the policy to set out an appropriate policy framework for the protection of the historic environment as the extant planning permission may not be implemented and an alternative application may be submitted.
In order to make this policy effective, we recommend that the policy would be improved by specifically referencing mitigation measures identified through the planning application process.

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, there are a number of designated heritage assets nearby including the grade II listed Horstead Lodge to the east of the site, the Coltishall and Horstead Conservation Area to the north east of the site (containing a number of listed buildings including the grade I listed Church of St John the Baptist), and a Roman Camp scheduled monument just to the north of the site. We have concerns regarding the potential impact on the setting of these various heritage assets.
We understand that this site now has planning permission and to that end the principle of development has been established. Nevertheless, it is still important for the policy to set out an appropriate policy framework for the protection of the historic environment as the extant planning permission may not be implemented and an alternative application may be submitted.
Whilst we broadly welcome criteria f and g of the policy, the policy would be improved by specifically referencing mitigation measures identified through the planning application process.