Specific Site Allocation Policy MIN 25 (land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe):

Object

Representation ID: 99100

Received: 07/11/2022

Respondent: Elspeth Evans

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In response to your letter dated 21 September 2022 it is with great sadness that I find that the area referred to as MIN 25 is again being considered for gravel extraction in spite of not meeting the necessary compliance at the earlier applications.
One of my causes of concern relates to the four listed buildings that are within 250m of the proposed site. According to your own documents the nearest, the Grade II listed White House Farm, is a mere 70m away, whilst the furthest is less than double that, being a Grade II listed Monument to William Salter at 130m distance.
Whereas I feel sure the applicants would try to site the main activities 250 m away from both these areas, the transport they would be utilising, with the recognised increased carbon emission dangers, not to mention the noise pollution, would be inevitably closer. I refer to your paragraph M25.2 Highway Access, in which it is stated that "The site would access Crab Apple Lane and then turn east onto the B1136 Loddon Road to the junction with the A143 Beccles Road,". Mention of this road also raises the question regarding the safety aspect. This crossroads is already a hazard but with the estimated increase of a possible 80 lorries per day the current highways infrastructure does not take into consideration the pedestrian or cycle traffic, including children having to access the local schools. For this application to be granted this junction would have to be altered prior to the proposed increased heavy goods use.
These aforementioned buildings are listed for their historic value and interest. However, there are many dwellings within the locale, the nearest, according to your notes M25.1, is a mere 19m from the site boundary. Your document continues to state "Even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand and gravel sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generation activities. The greatest impact will be within 100m of a source, if uncontrolled." Yet in the same section it is stated "Most of these properties are within the settlement of Haddiscoe, which is 55m away."
The proposed site is actually within the boundaries of the village of Haddiscoe, with many residential properties liable to be affected by the dust, noise and carbon emission pollution that would come with such a venture. In the Minerals Strategic Objectives, in particular MS07, which states ''To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals developments are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels." London controls vehicular carbon emissions, particularly those from diesel vehicles, by severe fines. Is this what is to be included as part of the mitigation process for those residents so afflicted?
Finally, my concerns also include the so-called sweetener that Breedon were proposing (at the summer 2022 consultation session at Haddiscoe village hall), in the subsequent landscaping of the then derelict site, in a decade. I feel this would be far too difficult to enforce after the site were vacated and instead propose that should this or future applications be successful, the applicants be required to pay an annual tithe to the village, that the current residents might put to improvements for the benefit of the village (not least of which would be the Grade I listed church of Saint Mary, one of the nearest properties that would be affected by this proposal.)
I look forward to common decency prevailing in this matter and that this application be seen for what it is: viz the enhancement to the proposers of this application (who are not local – being based in Leicestershire), at the cost of inconvenience and endangered health of the residents of this small Norfolk village, which is minutes away from access to the famous Norfolk Broads. I trust these comments will be seen for their honesty and that this application be declined.

Object

Representation ID: 99104

Received: 08/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Johnson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

MP1 The Haddiscoe site could be removed completely if all other sites were approved if not it would further increase the excess supply. Therefore, I believe this to be unsound and totally not justified.
M25 The Breedon presentation on 16th June 2022 estimated that this quarry would only produce 0.65m tonnes therefore its removal would have very little impact on the plan. Indeed, if include re-cycled aggregates it would remove totally the need for the quarry here at Haddiscoe. Therefore, I believe this is unsound & not justified.
Soundness tests: Not justified, not effective, not positively prepared, not consistent with national policy

Object

Representation ID: 99111

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs Maria Downing

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

MIN25 is located in an integral part of the village. This will undoubtedly have a negative effect on all villagers many of whom live within 250 m of the proposed site. I personally strongly object due to the negative health problems resulting from fine airborne particles.[Redacted personal data]. The inevitably noise, disturbance and upheaval will impact villagers' mental health and enjoyment of their environment. There will be diggers and loaders daily dealing with the movement/filtering/shaking/sieving of stones and sand etc along with traffic and pollution from 80 HGV movements per day using compulsory reversing bleepers.
Please carefully consider, this proposal is to be set in the middle of a quiet Norfolk village.
This contradicts the Mineral Strategic Objectives, particularly MS07, which states "To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels".
I do not feel this proposal takes into consideration the village and the occupiers.
Soundness test : Not Effective

Support

Representation ID: 99112

Received: 15/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Tony Watson

I fully support this site for extraction.

Object

Representation ID: 99134

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This is immediately adjacent to the Broads Authority boundary
Landscape impact concerns are as follows:
Proximity and landscape sensitivity mean that there would be potential for adverse effects on the Broads and setting.
Visual: processing plant – topography could enable this to be more visible.  Possible lighting associated with plant and operation would exacerbate visual effects. Bunding during the extraction phases could also cause visual intrusion.
Footpath to NE across marshes - users are sensitive receptors.   There may also be views from northern valley side above Blunderston/Flixton to Herringfleet Marshes.
Noise from plant and lorry movements.
Dust from extraction operations.
Additional lorry traffic on local roads in BA area.
Heritage concerns are as follows:
The proposed site here is immediately adjacent to the BA Executive Area boundary and I would suggest that there is the potential for harm to the setting of listed buildings, in particular, the White House, which is positioned to the north-east of the site.
In its assessment the document appears to assess the impact on heritage assets largely in terms of potential views of the mineral extraction site. However, I would suggest that the definition of ‘setting’ is somewhat wider than that, with the NPPF glossary definition stating it is ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced’. The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 guidance by Historic England goes on to state (p2): ‘The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors, such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places’.
Amenity concerns are as follows:
This scheme is going to bring new mineral extraction to the area. There are properties and businesses nearby, that are already in existence. The amenity impacts of the scheme on existing properties needs to be considered. Any scheme will need to consider and address amenity policy requirements and this could relate to the issue or noise, dust, over bearing, hours of operation for example. Has an assessment on the impact on amenity been completed as part of the consideration of this site?

Soundness: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99155

Received: 07/11/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Holiday Properties

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Haddiscoe site has half the tonnage of material based on Breedon's own figures, so is not the most suitable site proposed.
The site would have a negative impact on the tourism which Haddiscoe and the surrounding area enjoys. Haddiscoe is an unspoilt and naturally beautiful area, it's peaceful and home to much wildlife. This attracts a range of visitors to the area who stay in holiday homes and use other local services whilst on holiday. The tourism industry indirectly supports housekeepers, electricians, plumbers, maintenance, caterers, pubs, restaurants, cafes and other establishments. This is an important part of the local economy and a site such as this would be detrimental to this.
Soundness test: Not consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 99172

Received: 21/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs Julie Catmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Breedon presentation on 16.6.22 estimated that Haddiscoe site would only produce 0.65m tonnes, so its removal would have a minimal impact on the overall plan and also the inclusion of re-cycled aggregate removes the need for MIN 25 Haddiscoe site.
Soundness test: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99177

Received: 21/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs Julie Catmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Referring to MP1, it appears that Haddiscoe MIN 25 could be surplus to requirements and not necessary if all other sites are approved.
Soundness test: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99199

Received: 27/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Andrew Clouting

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We are very angry and frustrated that yet again we are having to go through this process.
The proposed site sits right on top of our village and people's homes.
It is clearly visible as you approach the village, particularly in the winter when the trees are bare no amount of screening or moving of boundaries can hide the fact that this site is still wholly unsuitable.
The increase in traffic, noise, dust, pollution and disturbance to the village, is unjustified given that now or in the future nothing will be given back to the village.
NO PIT NO LANDFILL.

Object

Representation ID: 99200

Received: 27/11/2022

Respondent: Alyson Moyse

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We are very angry and frustrated that yet again we are having to go through this process.
The proposed site sits right on top of our village and people's homes.
It is clearly visible as you approach the village, particularly in the winter when the trees are bare and no amount of screening or moving of boundaries can hide the fact that this site is still totally unsuitable.
The increase in traffic, noise, dust, pollution and disturbance is totally unjustified given that now or in the future nothing will be given back to the village.
NO PIT NO LANDFILL.

Support

Representation ID: 99213

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Breedon Trading Limited

The Company supports the identification of the Haddiscoe site as a Specific Site for the winning and working of sand and gravel.

Object

Representation ID: 99223

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Miss Sari Kelsey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Again with Min 25 Haddiscoe village is having to rebuff applications on gravel extraction. How many times must we reject these proposals? The proposed pit will negatively impact on all , not just the 20 immediately adjacent homes. The site is at a high point in our village, so sound of sand being sifted for the gravel it contains will carry across the valley and will reach all. The tree screening is deciduous, so useless in winter. In summer our local weather patten will result in fine dust covering all. The proposed artificial bunds would destroy the rural character.

Object

Representation ID: 99257

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We continue to have concerns regarding the potential impact of this allocation on heritage assets. We consider that there is insufficient historic environment evidence to justify its allocation.
Whilst we appreciate that an application is due shortly, we would still expect the preparation of a heritage impact assessment to inform the policy wording in the Local Plan, particularly, in respect of potential mitigation for the site.
Prepare a proportionate HIA now ahead of the application and EiP to consider the suitability or otherwise of the site and inform its extent and any potential heritage mitigation. The findings of the HIA would then need to inform the policy and supporting text.
In order to justify this allocation, ensure consistency with the NPPF and to make the policy wording effective, for these sites we recommend an HIA is prepared now in advance of the EiP. This should provide a robust evidence base for the plan. Any evidence needs to be proportionate and need not necessarily be particularly onerous. For this site a fairly brief HIA will suffice. Our site allocations advice note https://historicengland.org.uk/imagesbooks/
publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/ provides further advice in this respect and we would be happy to discuss the matter further and advise on a suitable way forward.

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundaries, there are a number of grade I and grade II listed buildings in close proximity to the site. Of particular concern is the impact on the setting of the Grade I listed Church of St Mary, just 110m away and also the grade II listed White House Farm only 70 metres away. Whilst we note that indicative site buffers/screening are shown on the map, we are still very concerned at the potential impact of the proposed allocation on heritage assets.
We note that the plan states that users of the road would not have views of the mineral extraction when viewing the church, but that is not the same as not affecting the setting. Setting impacts can are not just visual but can include noise, dust, vibration etc.
Indeed, in relation to the previous application on this site we raised strong objections and we advised that ‘In considering the contribution to the historic significance of the church made by its setting, it is clear that some harm will result from the proposed quarry, both during its period of activity and from the permanent change to the landscape.’
Although we appreciate that unlike the previous application, the allocation is just to the north of the road. However, we continue to have concerns regarding the potential impact of the allocation on heritage assets.
To that end we recommended that a Heritage Impact Assessment is completed at this stage to assess the suitability or otherwise of the allocation and extent of the site and consider any mitigation that might be necessary should the site be found suitable from a heritage perspective. The findings of the HIA would then need to inform the policy and supporting text.
Whilst we appreciate that an application is due in late 2022, we would still expect the preparation of a heritage impact assessment to inform the policy wording in the Local Plan, particularly, in respect of potential mitigation for the site.
We do welcome criteria a, b, g and h. In addition, we welcome the screening to the around the edge of the site as shown on the map extract.

Object

Representation ID: 99334

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Louise Grimmer

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The site abuts the centre of Haddiscoe village, so that it is located less than 250m from a significant number of residential properties. Our own family home is the closest of all to the site, being located between the site and the Church of St Mary. Our house is situated on the B1136, a mere 40m from the site boundary, 300m from the B1136/Crab Apple Lane junction, and 150m from the B1136/A143 junction. MSO7 of paragraph 4.3 (Minerals Strategic Objectives) of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan promises to "ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels.” Given the location of our home, immediately next door to the site and very near to the main road junctions, it would be unreasonable to claim that objective MSO7 could possibly be met. In addition to the heavy goods vehicle traffic which would be created in the immediate vicinity of our home, noise and dust from the site itself are bound to be so intrusive as to substantially affect our lifestyle, health and wellbeing. It is inconceivable that fencing or screening of any type could provide sufficient and adequate mitigation.
Soundness test: Not Justified

Comment

Representation ID: 99349

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

The site policy needs an additional requirement for any application to include a hydrogeology assessment in order to ensure that impacts on the nearby Devil’s End Meadow CWS, which includes wet woodland Priority Habitat around the Landspring Beck, as recommended in section M25.15 of the supporting text for the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 99370

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Anthony Burton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25 - S4.1 - This states that "Mineral development and Waste Management within Norfolk will be undertaken that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change. The plan acknowledges that gravel extraction is climate heavy. MS08 states "to ensure mineral development addresses the impacts it will have on climate change by minimising greenhouse gas emissions during the winning ,working and handling of minerals, providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation where practicable and integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adoption into design and restoration and aftercare proposals" MIN25 is particularly climate change heavy since as the sand and gravel is quarried which releases 100% carbon, but only the gravel is required and transported to the Breedon Norton Subcourse Quarry.
Additionally the Breedon proposal is to return the site to the landowner for an unspecified use. This is inconsistent with a positive climate change aftercare proposal.

M25 states "The site will need to be worked without dewatering, unless an Hydrogeological Impact Assessment identifies either no unacceptable Hydrological impacts or appropriate mitigation is identified to ensure no acceptable impact to Hydrogeology"
The site is at the highest point of the village and in close proximity to dwellings. 6.44 states that "mineral development must also ensure that there will be no significant change to the ground water or surface water levels, including monitoring of dewatering operations to ensure on adverse impacts on surrounding water availability and/or the water environment" The excavation will have an unspecified impact on the water tables of the dwellings in the village, which have already been materially impacted by a combination of heavy rainfall and prolonged drought conditions. This is unsound and ineffective.

Object

Representation ID: 99377

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As our Parish Council members are not legally qualified, we cannot comment on the legality of the document however we would like to express our opinion on the different points raised as they are unsound and not effective. This area has previously been designated and had planning permissions applied for. After a great deal of expense and upset to our parishioners planning was refused. Even before the closing date of this pre-submission document Norfolk County Council have again validated a planning application from Breedon and consultations on this will start this week (Ref FUL/2022/0056).
Please take into account the views of the households who live and work in this area.

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

Object

Representation ID: 99387

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

M25. S4.1 states that “Mineral development and Waste Management within Norfolk will be undertaken that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change”. The plan acknowledges that gravel extraction is climate heavy. MS08 states “to ensure that mineral development addresses and minimises the impacts it will have on climate change by minimising greenhouse gas emissions during the winning, working and handling of minerals, providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation where practicable, and integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adaption into the design and restoration and aftercare proposals”. Min 25 is particularly climate change heavy as the sand and gravel is quarried, which releases the 100% carbon, but only the gravel is required and transported to the Breedon Norton Subcourse Quarry. Additionally, the Breedon proposal is to return the land to the land owner for an unspecified use, this is inconsistent with a positive climate change aftercare proposal. This is unsound and ineffective.

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

Object

Representation ID: 99389

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

M25. States “The site will need to be worked without dewatering, unless a Hydrogeological Impact Assessment identifies either no unacceptable hydrogeological impacts or appropriate mitigation is identified to ensure no acceptable impact to hydrogeology”; The site is the highest point in the village and in close proximity to dwellings. 6.44 states that “mineral development must also ensure that there will be no significant change in the ground water or surface water levels, including monitoring of dewatering operations to ensure no adverse impacts on surrounding water availability and/or the water environment”. The excavation will have an unspecified impact on the water tables of the dwellings in the village, which have already been materially impact by a combination of heavy rainfall and prolonged drought conditions. This is unsound and ineffective.

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

Object

Representation ID: 99402

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Burton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25 - S4.1
This states that "Mineral development and Waste Management within Norfolk will be undertaken that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change. The plan acknowledges that gravel extraction is climate heavy. MS08 states "to ensure mineral development addresses the impacts it will have on climate change by minimising greehouse gas emissions during the winning ,working and handling of minerals,providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation where practicable and integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adoption into design and restoration and aftercare proposals" MIN25 is particularly climate change heavy since as the sand and gravel is quarried which releases 100% carbon,but only the gravelis required and transported to the Breedon Norton Subcourse Quarry.
Additionally the Breedon proposal is to return the site to the landowner for an unspecified use. This is inconsistent with a positive climate change aftercare proposal.
M25 states "The site will need to be worked without dewatering, unless an Hydrogeological Impact Assessment identifies either no unacceptable Hydrological impacts or appropriate mitigation is identified to ensure no acceptable impact to Hydrogeology"
The site is at the highest point of the village and in close proximity to dwellings. 6.44 states that "mineral development must also ensure that there will be no significant change to the ground water or surface water levels, including monitoring of dewatering operations to ensure on adverse impacts on surrounding water availability and/or the water environment" The excavation will have an unspecified impact on the water tables of the dwellings in the village, which have already been materially impacted by a combination of heavy rainfall and prolonged drought conditions. This is unsound and ineffective.

Object

Representation ID: 99405

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parocial Church Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25 - S4.1
This states that "Mineral development and Waste Management within Norfolk will be undertaken that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change. The plan acknowledges that gravel extraction is climate heavy. MS08 states "to ensure mineral development addresses the impacts it will have on climate change by minimising greehouse gas emissions during the winning ,working and handling of minerals,providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation where practicable and integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adoption into design and restoration and aftercare proposals" MIN25 is particularly climate change heavy since as the sand and gravel is quarried which releases 100% carbon,but only the gravelis required and transported to the Breedon Norton Subcourse Quarry.
Additionally the Breedon proposal is to return the site to the landowner for an unspecified use.This is inconsistent with a positive climate change aftercare proposal

Object

Representation ID: 99406

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parocial Church Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25 states "The site will need to be worked without dewatering, unless an Hydrogeological Impact Assessment identifies either no unacceptable Hydrological impacts or appropriate mitigation is identified to ensure no acceptable impact to Hydrogeology"
The site is at the highest point of the village and in close proximity to dwellings. 6.44 states that "mineral development must also ensure that there will be no significant change to the ground water or surface water levels, including monitoring of dewatering operations to ensure on adverse impacts on surrounding water availability and/or the water environment" The excavation will have an unspecified impact on the water tables of the dwellings in the village, which have already been materially impacted by a combination of heavy rainfall and prolonged drought conditions.
This is unsound and ineffective

Comment

Representation ID: 99500

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Broadland District Council

MIN25 at Haddiscoe – reiterate previous comments: ‘the site is very close to the nearest dwelling and the village generally, it would seem to be quite a significant site in terms of volume of material to be extracted, number of lorry movements etc. (we note there is a balance to be struck between length of extraction time and daily vehicle movements, to address concerns raised by the previous refusal of permission). Is there any scope to reduce the extent of the site, moving the boundary away from nearby dwellings and/or phasing the extraction as part of any mitigation? This, along with the impact on the Grade I Listed church and the visual impact of the proposed bunding, was a concern that South Norfolk Council raised in respect of the previous application on this site. In addition, the landscape assessment refers to mature screen planting, it would be useful if retention of this was picked up in the Initial Conclusion.’

In addition, it should be noted that opposite the site on land south of Beccles Road, Haddiscoe, has been put forward as a preferred option for residential development (Part of SN0414) as part of the South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan

Object

Representation ID: 99505

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Stopit2

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

M25. States “The site will need to be worked without dewatering, unless a Hydrogeological Impact Assessment identifies either no unacceptable hydrogeological impacts or appropriate mitigation is identified to ensure no acceptable impact to hydrogeology”; The site is the highest point in the village and in close proximity to dwellings. 6.44 states that “mineral development must also ensure that there will be no significant change in the ground water or surface water levels, including monitoring of dewatering operations to ensure no adverse impacts on surrounding water availability and/or the water environment”. The excavation will have an unspecified impact on the water tables of the dwellings in the village, which have already been materially impact by a combination of heavy rainfall and prolonged drought conditions. This is unsound and ineffective.

M25. S4.1 states that “Mineral development and Waste Management within Norfolk will be undertaken that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change”. The plan acknowledges that gravel extraction is climate heavy. MS08 states “to ensure that mineral development addresses and minimises the impacts it will have on climate change by minimising greenhouse gas emissions during the winning, working and handling of minerals, providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation where practicable, and integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adaption into the design and restoration and aftercare proposals”. Min 25 is particularly climate change heavy as the sand and gravel is quarried, which releases the 100% carbon, but only the gravel is required and transported to the Breedon Norton Subcourse Quarry. Additionally, the Breedon proposal is to return the land to the land owner for an unspecified use, this is inconsistent with a positive climate change aftercare proposal. This is unsound and ineffective.

Comment

Representation ID: 99519

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Reiterate previous comments: ‘the site is very close to the nearest dwelling and the village generally, it would seem to be quite a significant site in terms of volume of material to be extracted, number of lorry movements etc. (we note there is a balance to be struck between length of extraction time and daily vehicle movements, to address concerns raised by the previous refusal of permission). Is there any scope to reduce the extent of the site, moving the boundary away from nearby dwellings and/or phasing the extraction as part of any mitigation? This, along with the impact on the Grade I Listed church and the visual impact of the proposed bunding, was a concern that South Norfolk Council raised in respect of the previous application on this site. In addition, the landscape assessment refers to mature screen planting, it would be useful if retention of this was picked up in the Initial Conclusion.’
In addition, it should be noted that opposite the site on land south of Beccles Road, Haddiscoe, has been put forward as a preferred option for residential development (Part of SN0414) as part of the South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan.