Initial Consultation document
Search representations
Results for Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk search
New searchComment
Initial Consultation document
Question 60: Proposed site MIN 204
Representation ID: 92028
Received: 09/08/2018
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
o Feltwell (Site 204 - Lodge Road). This is an extension of existing works. If better quality geological information is supplied which proves the estimated mineral resource, the two southern parcels of land are potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.
o Feltwell (Site 204 - Lodge Road). This is an extension of existing works. If better quality geological information is supplied which proves the estimated mineral resource, the two southern parcels of land are potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 65: Proposed site MIN 206
Representation ID: 92029
Received: 09/08/2018
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
o Tottenhill (Site 206 - West of Lynn Road) This is an extension of existing works. The Tottenhill sites would be worked sequentially to mitigate any cumulative impacts.Potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.
o Tottenhill (Site 206 - West of Lynn Road) This is an extension of existing works. The Tottenhill sites would be worked sequentially to mitigate any cumulative impacts.Potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 11: Policy WP2 'Spatial strategy for waste management facilities'
Representation ID: 92030
Received: 09/08/2018
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
* From Policy WP2 it would seem possible to locate waste management facilities away from the broad location that generated the waste. Thus necessitating potentially significant transport movements, and possibly generating resentment from recipient communities.
* Whilst not necessarily inappropriate for all types of waste where specialist facilities are needed, extremely careful thought should be given to general waste or significant quantities requiring movement.
* A better approach would seem to be one where the policy encouraged waste to be dealt with as near to the generating source as possible.
* From Policy WP2 it would seem possible to locate waste management facilities away from the broad location that generated the waste. Thus necessitating potentially significant transport movements, and possibly generating resentment from recipient communities.
* Whilst not necessarily inappropriate for all types of waste where specialist facilities are needed, extremely careful thought should be given to general waste or significant quantities requiring movement.
* A better approach would seem to be one where the policy encouraged waste to be dealt with as near to the generating source as possible.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 10: Policy WP1 'waste management capacity to be provided'
Representation ID: 92031
Received: 09/08/2018
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
* The draft plan avoids explicitly planning for the anticipated amount of waste that might be generated (Policy WP1). Whilst this is justified to a point in the supporting text, it could be risky, especially if higher amounts of waste are generated. A lack of suitable sites being proposed is part of the issue, and the draft plan may generate sites. A more robust strategy should be put in place.
* The draft plan avoids explicitly planning for the anticipated amount of waste that might be generated (Policy WP1). Whilst this is justified to a point in the supporting text, it could be risky, especially if higher amounts of waste are generated. A lack of suitable sites being proposed is part of the issue, and the draft plan may generate sites. A more robust strategy should be put in place.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 74: Proposed site SIL 02 (land at Shouldham and Marham)
Representation ID: 92044
Received: 10/08/2018
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
* The area at Shouldham / Marham in Policy SIL02 is a 'Preferred Area' which is something beyond an 'Area of Search', but not as definite as an allocation.
* Whilst it is accepted that additional geological information has come forward from Sibelco, it will be disappointing to those communities locally who could draw some comfort from having a defined Area of Searh perhaps containing the expectations of extraction to it.
* The expression of a 'preference' for extraction to take place beyond the Area of Search current boundary (Policy SIL 02) casts doubt of the certainty for other communities near to other Areas of Search.
* Notwithstanding these comments the NCC note that they expect a lesser area to actually come forward for allocation.
* There is a list of significant caveats / issues to be addressed before the potential extraction could proceed.
* It is interesting to note that a form of 'wet extraction' is proposed which could avoid some potential environmental problems.
* The area at Shouldham / Marham in Policy SIL02 is a 'Preferred Area' which is something beyond an 'Area of Search', but not as definite as an allocation.
* Whilst it is accepted that additional geological information has come forward from Sibelco, it will be disappointing to those communities locally who could draw some comfort from having a defined A of S perhaps containing the expectations of extraction to it.
* The expression of a 'preference' for extraction to take place beyond the A of S current boundary (Policy SIL 02) casts doubt of the certainty for other communities near to other A's of S.
* Notwithstanding these comments the NCC note that they expect a lesser area to actually come forward for allocation.
* There is a list of significant caveats / issues to be addressed before the potential extraction could proceed.
* It is interesting to note that a form of 'wet extraction' is proposed which could avoid some potential environmental problems.
