Initial Consultation document
Search representations
Results for Savills search
New searchComment
Initial Consultation document
Question 84: Proposed site MIN 92
Representation ID: 92365
Received: 13/08/2018
Respondent: Savills
We are responding to site MIN 92 included in the consultation document. We are the authorized agents for the landowner, the Raveningham Estate.
We note that the initial conclusion is that the site is not suitable for allocation. We respond to the reasons that have been stated in the consultation document as follows:-
1. There is a tall hedge long the eastern boundary and a large wood to the North and West. Impact on the Broads Authority Executive Area will be minimal. Advanced tree planting would help to mitigate any adverse impact as well.
2. The line of trees crossing the site could be removed or left in situ and material could still be extracted from the site.
3. The site is adjacent to an existing working gravel pit so there are benefits as sand and gravel can be processed on the adjacent site with no need to install new machinery which would be the case on a greenfield site.
All in all we believe that the provisional grounds for refusing to allocate this site are incorrect and the issues that have been raised can all be dealt with at the planning stage. We believe the site is suitable for mineral extraction and should be identified as such in the Draft Plan.
Site Ref: MIN 92 - Land west of Ferry Road, Heckingham
We are responding to the above site included in the consultation document. We are the authorized agents for the landowner, the Raveningham Estate.
We note that the initial conclusion is that the site is not suitable for allocation. We respond to the reasons that have been stated in the consultation document as follows:-
1. There is a tall hedge long the eastern boundary and a large wood to the North and West. Impact on the Broads Authority Executive Area will be minimal. Advanced tree planting would help to mitigate any adverse impact as well.
2. The line of trees crossing the site could be removed or left in situ and material could still be extracted from the site.
3. The site is adjacent to an existing working gravel pit so there are benefits as sand and gravel can be processed on the adjacent site with no need to install new machinery which would be the case on a greenfield site.
All in all we believe that the provisional grounds for refusing to allocate this site are incorrect and the issues that have been raised can all be dealt with at the planning stage. We believe the site is suitable for mineral extraction and should be identified as such in the Draft Plan.
