Initial Consultation document
Search representations
Results for Middleton Aggregates Ltd search
New searchComment
Initial Consultation document
Question 61: Proposed site MIN 19 & MIN 205
Representation ID: 92141
Received: 13/08/2018
Respondent: Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Agent: Stephen M Daw Limited
The Site (MIN 19 & MIN 205) is suitable for Allocation for the following reasons:
(i) Historic Environment -
The fenlands along this section of the River Nar were enclosed, allotted, drained and improved following a series of Acts passed in the 25 years after 1790. The present landscape, a grid-like network of fields now largely under arable cultivation, was created at that time. The boundaries of the proposed allocation area are formed by die-straight boundaries. They were almost certainly laid out when the parish was enclosed in 1809. This new landscape was still under construction when mapped in 1813 by the Ordnance Survey Clearly, between 1796 and c.1815, this was a landscape which saw radical transformation.
Aerial photographs clearly show that the Priory ruins stand within a roughly oval land unit defined by tracks and hedge boundaries extending north-east from the River Nar for c.1 km. The southern half is scheduled. These curving boundaries are very different from those of the late, straight-edged fields, which surround it and which would, of course, not have existed at the time of the Priory's occupation. The simple reason is that beyond the oval land unit - in essence the Priory's outer precinct - the land was wet and seasonally under water. This would have formed an important resource for the Priory, for fish and water fowl, and the River Nar, now embanked, could have provided access and opportunities for trade.
Visually, and as appreciated on a recent site visit with Norfolk CC Officers, the proposed allocation area is sufficiently distant in a flat landscape to avoid harm to the setting of the scheduled monument and listed gatehouse.
In conclusion, a water-based restoration would represent a return to a more authentic monastic landscape than the current, early 19th-century, fieldscape. This would be of benefit to the historic setting of the monastic complex. Visual setting would not be affected.
(ii) Landscape -
Supporting text gives the impression that the Allocation of MIN 19 was allowed, in no small part, to bring the asphalt plant under planning control. This is misleading as the plant has only ever operated under a time-limited planning consent and so planning control has always been in place. Indeed it is understood the plant is to be dismantled and removed next year (2019).
Notwithstanding removal of the asphalt plant, the MIN 19 Allocation contains sand and gravel processing plant/stockpiles and so it is therefore incorrect to say that the whole of the MIN 19 area could be restored at the time of the asphalt plants removal.
The approved afteruse of the MIN 19 plant site is woodland. The proposed mosaic of pools and wet woodland will be more appropriate to the Fenland landscape that might once have occurred in the area.
The MIN 205 area is not grazing marsh as stated but has been in an arable use for several decades, this year growing sugar beet.
Supporting text suggests that the proposals are to restore the site to open water. This is not the case, the proposals are to restore the site to a the mosaic of wetland/fenland habitats. Areas of open water will not be visible within this landscape as the water bodies will be on a much smaller scale than the majority of the open water lakes in the area (to which supporting text refers). The proposed mosaic will consequently offer a considerable landscape and ecological enhancement over the open arable field that currently exists and so is entirely consistent with the aims of Core River Valley Policy.
The Site (MIN 19 & MIN 205) is suitable for Allocation for the following reasons:
(i) Historic Environment -
The fenlands along this section of the River Nar were enclosed, allotted, drained and improved following a series of Acts passed in the 25 years after 1790. The present landscape, a grid-like network of fields now largely under arable cultivation, was created at that time. The boundaries of the proposed allocation area are formed by die-straight boundaries. They were almost certainly laid out when the parish was enclosed in 1809. This new landscape was still under construction when mapped in 1813 by the Ordnance Survey Clearly, between 1796 and c.1815, this was a landscape which saw radical transformation.
Aerial photographs clearly show that the Priory ruins stand within a roughly oval land unit defined by tracks and hedge boundaries extending north-east from the River Nar for c.1 km. The southern half is scheduled. These curving boundaries are very different from those of the late, straight-edged fields, which surround it and which would, of course, not have existed at the time of the Priory's occupation. The simple reason is that beyond the oval land unit - in essence the Priory's outer precinct - the land was wet and seasonally under water. This would have formed an important resource for the Priory, for fish and water fowl, and the River Nar, now embanked, could have provided access and opportunities for trade.
Visually, and as appreciated on a recent site visit with Norfolk CC Officers, the proposed allocation area is sufficiently distant in a flat landscape to avoid harm to the setting of the scheduled monument and listed gatehouse.
In conclusion, a water-based restoration would represent a return to a more authentic monastic landscape than the current, early 19th-century, fieldscape. This would be of benefit to the historic setting of the monastic complex. Visual setting would not be affected.
(ii) Landscape -
Supporting text gives the impression that the Allocation of MIN 19 was allowed, in no small part, to bring the asphalt plant under planning control. This is misleading as the plant has only ever operated under a time-limited planning consent and so planning control has always been in place. Indeed it is understood the plant is to be dismantled and removed next year (2019).
Notwithstanding removal of the asphalt plant, the MIN 19 Allocation contains sand and gravel processing plant/stockpiles and so it is therefore incorrect to say that the whole of the MIN 19 area could be restored at the time of the asphalt plants removal.
The approved afteruse of the MIN 19 plant site is woodland. The proposed mosaic of pools and wet woodland will be more appropriate to the Fenland landscape that might once have occurred in the area.
The MIN 205 area is not grazing marsh as stated but has been in an arable use for several decades, this year growing sugar beet.
Supporting text suggests that the proposals are to restore the site to open water. This is not the case, the proposals are to restore the site to a the mosaic of wetland/fenland habitats. Areas of open water will not be visible within this landscape as the water bodies will be on a much smaller scale than the majority of the open water lakes in the area (to which supporting text refers). The proposed mosaic will consequently offer a considerable landscape and ecological enhancement over the open arable field that currently exists and so is entirely consistent with the aims of Core River Valley Policy.
