Site Characteristics

Object

Representation ID: 99093

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Ms Tanya Fairlie

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

MP1 states that the shortfall of 12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix 1), so the Haddiscoe site (MIN 25) could be removed altogether and there would still be an excess of 1.5m tonnes (15.4m – 1.3m= 14.1m less 12.6m), assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology would further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99094

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Tim Haycock

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

MP1 states that the shortfall of 12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix 1), so the Haddiscoe site (MIN 25) could be removed altogether and there would still be an excess of 1.5m tonnes (15.4m – 1.3m= 14.1m less 12.6m), assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology would further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99095

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Ms Tanya Fairlie

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

M25. The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation on the 16.06.22 estimated that the Haddiscoe site will only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. We would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe site entirely. This is unsound and not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99096

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Tim Haycock

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

M25. The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation on the 16.06.22 estimated that the Haddiscoe site will only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. We would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe site entirely. This is unsound and not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99097

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Tim Haycock

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

MSO6 states “To ensure the sustainable and expedient delivery of mineral extraction while protecting people from harm, positively contributing to the natural, built and historic environments and mitigating against unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts” One such cumulative impact is the call for sites for housing allocation in the Greater Norwich Development plan, which includes four sites adjacent to the A143 in the middle of the village. If some or all of these sites are adopted, then the timeframes will overlap and there is the potential for two major construction sites working either end of the village at the same time which would be even more disruptive in what is already a congested road system. This is unsound and ineffective

Object

Representation ID: 99098

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Ms Tanya Fairlie

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

MSO6 states “To ensure the sustainable and expedient delivery of mineral extraction while protecting people from harm, positively contributing to the natural, built and historic environments and mitigating against unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts” One such cumulative impact is the call for sites for housing allocation in the Greater Norwich Development plan, which includes four sites adjacent to the A143 in the middle of the village. If some or all of these sites are adopted, then the timeframes will overlap and there is the potential for two major construction sites working either end of the village at the same time which would be even more disruptive in what is already a congested road system. This is unsound and ineffective.

Object

Representation ID: 99367

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Anthony Burton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

MP1 States that the shortfall of 12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix1), so the Haddiscoe site M25 could be removed all together from the plan and there would still be an excess of1.5m tonnes (15.4 - 1.3 = 14.1 less 12.6m assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology woulds further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation in June 2022 estimated that the site would only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. I would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe Site M25 entirely. This is unsound and not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 99383

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Eve Basford

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

plan is to take gravel only and leave sand which will increase noise and dust as it is sorted.
Breedon presentation estimated that the Haddiscoe site will only produce 0.65m tonnes and would argue the need for such a small amount unnecessary

Object

Representation ID: 99384

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

MP1 states that the shortfall of 12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix 1), so the Haddiscoe site (MIN 25) could be removed altogether and there would still be an excess of 1.5m tonnes (15.4m – 1.3m= 14.1m less 12.6m), assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology would further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

M25. The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation on the 16.06.22 estimated that the Haddiscoe site will only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. We would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe site entirely. This is unsound and not justified.

Soundness tests: Not Justified, Not Effective, Not Positively Prepared, Not Consistent with National Policy

Object

Representation ID: 99397

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Burton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

MP1 States that the shortfall of12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix1),so the Haddiscoe site M25 could be removed all together from the plan and there would still be an excess of1.5m tonnes (15.4 - 1.3 = 14.1 less 12.6m assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology woulds further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

M25 -The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation in June 2022 estimated that the site would only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. I would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe Site M25 entirely. This is unsound and not justified.

Soundness test: not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99403

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parocial Church Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

MP1 States that the shortfall of12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix1), so the Haddiscoe site M25 could be removed all together from the plan and there would still be an excess of1.5m tonnes (15.4 - 1.3 = 14.1 less 12.6m assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology woulds further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

M25 The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation in June 2022 estimated that the site would only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. I would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe Site M25 entirely.
This is unsound and not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 99441

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Kennedy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25 The Haddiscoe site was included to be 1.3 m tonnes, the Breeden presentation on 16/6/22 estimated that this site would only produce 0.65 m tonnes so its removal would have even less impact on your own overall plan. It could also be argued that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe site entirely.
Soundness test: Not justified and not effective

Object

Representation ID: 99506

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Stopit2

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

MP1 states that the shortfall of 12.6m tonnes is less than the estimated resource bank at 15.4m tonnes (appendix 1), so the Haddiscoe site (MIN 25) could be removed altogether and there would still be an excess of 1.5m tonnes (15.4m – 1.3m= 14.1m less 12.6m), assuming that all other sites are approved. The inclusion of recycled aggregates in the methodology would further increase the excess supply. This is unsound and not justified

M25. The Haddiscoe site is included at 1.3m tonnes. The Breedon presentation on the 16.06.22 estimated that the Haddiscoe site will only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have even less impact on the plan. We would also argue that the inclusion of recycled aggregate removes the need for the Haddiscoe site entirely. This is unsound and not justified.