Specific Site Allocation Policy MIN 115 (land at Lord Anson's Wood, near North Walsham):

Object

Representation ID: 99099

Received: 28/09/2022

Respondent: Mr Andrew Bluss

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

My primary concern is with MIN 115 (Lord Anson's Wood, North Walsham). As stated in my previous submission of representation, the impact on the environment alone would be catastrophic!! The acreage of trees that would be destroyed, the associated wildlife that thrives in such a diverse ecosystem. Our own food chain relies on these creatures. From the tiniest of insects to the bees that pollinate our crops to the birds that grace our skies. All would be lost just so we can put a hole in the ground, remove what lies beneath and, when finished in a relatively small timespan, leave it a condition that is beyond the environmental repair that took millennia to create. Planting a few saplings as a token effort of appeasement is nowhere near sufficient.

Then there is the the question of the pollution caused, not just from the extraction and removal process involving hundreds of lorries using our narrow country roads but also the building of the plant in the first instance. Mud during the wet seasons! Dust during the dry seasons! Noise from the mining equipment! These are just three examples of what is going to happen despite anything the proposers of this site will say. They do not have to live here. I, and my neighbours, will have to endure all this!

We then have to address the facts that the location is of nationally historic interest. With the site of the Battle of North Walsham plus the crash site of a World War II aircraft plus any other archaeological items from antiquity that are still to be unearthed.

There are other similar mineral rich veins within and around the United Kingdom that could be removed without causing the disturbance this proposal will. I totally object!!

Soundness test: not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99147

Received: 04/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Anthony Brzeczek

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I refer to the current Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan and in particular the land known as Lord Ansons Wood, North Walsham Road, Skeyton, reference in the plan MIN115, which has been ear marked as a possible site for the extraction of gravel.
I would point out that the roads around this site are no more than country lanes narrow in the most part with verges, banks, hedges and trees and are unsuitable for use by the large lorries which will be required to transport any gravel from the site. Should two of these meet they will be unable to pass. Should one of these lorries meet a car then it is likely one of the vehicles will have to mount a verge or bank causing damage to these and any growing vegetation or trees. Further there is no suitable exit or entrance into the site because of poor visibility.
Further the site is within an area of woodland and extraction of minerals at this site will do untold damage to the woodland and wildlife which inhabit these woods.
For these reasons I believe it would be wrong to include Lord Ansons Wood in the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 99217

Received: 08/12/2022

Respondent: Westwick Farming Partnership

Agent: Savills

As agent to the Westwick Farming Partnership, the owners of land outlined within MIN115, I confirm support for the continued inclusion of this area within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 99254

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the reference in paragraph M115.3 and 115.5 to the nearby heritage assets and the need to provide a heritage statement to identify appropriate mitigation with any planning application. We welcome the reference to a heritage statement in the policy as well as reference to nearby heritage assets. We also welcome the reference to archaeology requirements in the policy and supporting text.

Comment

Representation ID: 99429

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Natural England

Paragraph c. of Specific Site Allocation Policy Min 115, states that there is a requirement for, “an acceptable full biodiversity survey and report, including bat and badger surveys.” It is unclear why protected species surveys have been requested specifically for this site. It should be emphasised that protected species surveys will be required at any of the allocated sites where it is likely that a protected species is present. We would recommend reference to our standing advice [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-how-to-review-planning-applications] of protected species.