Initial Consultation document

Search representations

Results for Beetley parish council search

New search New search

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Question 40: Proposed site MIN 12

Representation ID: 92142

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Beetley parish council

Agent: Mr B Leigh

Representation Summary:

The Parish Council agrees with the initial assessment.
This would be another extension to the existing quarry in East Bilney and the conveyor belt, which is currently being extended to the site to the north which has been granted permission, could be extended to this site. This would not increase HGV movements as all would continue to access and egress the existing processing plant. Provided adequate mitigation measures are specified during extraction there would be minimal impact to Beetley.

Full text:

The Parish Council agrees with the initial assessment.
This would be another extension to the existing quarry in East Bilney and the conveyor belt, which is currently being extended to the site to the north which has been granted permission, could be extended to this site. This would not increase HGV movements as all would continue to access and egress the existing processing plant. Provided adequate mitigation measures are specified during extraction there would be minimal impact to Beetley.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Question 41: Proposed site MIN 51 & MIN 13

Representation ID: 92143

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Beetley parish council

Agent: Mr B Leigh

Representation Summary:

At the previous Minerals and Waste Framework both sites were assessed as not suitable. No mention is made of a processing plant on site if sited there would be two plants in close proximity. This would not be acceptable. If no processing pant is to be sited at these sites then gravel extraction will have to be transported. The C225 is not suitable for this and the B1146 is not guaranteed to be used. The Parish Council feels that the cumulative effect of these two sites plus MIN12 would not be acceptable.
The initial conclusion is not agreed with.

Full text:

At the previous Minerals and Waste Framework both sites were assessed as not suitable. No mention is made of a processing plant on site if sited there would be two plants in close proximity. This would not be acceptable. If no processing pant is to be sited at these sites then gravel extraction will have to be transported. The C225 is not suitable for this and the B1146 is not guaranteed to be used. The Parish Council feels that the cumulative effect of these two sites plus MIN12 would not be acceptable.
The initial conclusion is not agreed with.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Question 42: Proposed site MIN 08

Representation ID: 92144

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Beetley parish council

Agent: Mr B Leigh

Representation Summary:

The Parish Council agrees with the initial conclusion that this site is not suitable for allocation for all the same reasons as MIN51 and MIN13.

Full text:

The Parish Council agrees with the initial conclusion that this site is not suitable for allocation for all the same reasons as MIN51 and MIN13.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.