Initial Consultation document

Object

Representation ID: 92012

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We are concerned by the commitment to be self-sufficient in sand and gravel in part as the demand for these materials could exceed a realistic county supply. Whilst this is a vision and not a firm commitment we still have a concern with the aim to "make an important contribution to the national production of silica sand".

Object

Representation ID: 92013

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

CPRE Norfolk agrees that development should be sustainable but is concerned that sustainability could be used as an argument to allocate otherwise unsuitable sites.

Object

Representation ID: 92014

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We have concerns about the open-ended nature of the amounts to be extracted. We would prefer to see realistic maxima added for each of the materials as well as the included "at least" figures.

Object

Representation ID: 92015

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We would like to see County Wildlife Sites included in the list of constrains under this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 92016

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We strongly hope that this policy will be sufficient to protect Norfolk's core river valleys from any inappropriate and environmentally/ecologically damaging site allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 92017

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We agree that this site is unsuitable for mineral extraction due to the impact on nearby Swangey Fen SSSI (part of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC) and County Wildlife Sites.

Object

Representation ID: 92018

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We agree with the conclusion that this site is unsuitable for mineral extraction due to the impact on nearby Swangey Fen SSSI (part of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC) and County Wildlife Sites.

Object

Representation ID: 92019

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We feel that the impact on nearby Swannington Upgate Common should be included in the conclusion which would be an additional reason for deeming this site to be unsuitable. Once/if the plantation is felled it would be welcome to see the land restored to heathland.

Object

Representation ID: 92020

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We agree that this site is unsuitable. In addition to the reason given it is an area used much by residents as an area of woodland amenity - this would be good to maintain, particularly when there are other suitable sites for extraction which do not have such public access.

Object

Representation ID: 92021

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

We agree that these sites are unsuitable due to their substantially harmful impacts on the River Nar and the Abbey Gatehouse and its setting.